revised draft environmental impact statement for … ii divert publicrdeis_appsa-c_100615.pdfrevised...

Revised Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR DIVERT ACTIVITIES AND EXERCISES, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS VOLUME II: APPENDICES

OC T OB E R 2015

Revised Draft EIS for Divert Activities and Exercises

HQ PACAF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI October 2015 i

REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1 DIVERT ACTIVITIES AND EXERCISES 2

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (CNMI) 3

VOLUME II: APPENDICES 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

A. COOPERATING AGENCY REQUESTS AND ACCEPTANCE LETTERS 6

B. ESA SECTION 7 CONSULTATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 7

C. CZMA COMPLIANCE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 8

D. NHPA SECTION 106 CONSULTATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 9

E. AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS AND MODELING 10

F. AERONAUTICAL STUDY IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN 11 MARIANA ISLANDS 12

G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENTS 13

14

Revised Draft EIS for Divert Activities and Exercises

HQ PACAF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI October 2015 ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1

A P P E N D I X A

Cooperating Agency Requests and Acceptance Letters

Revised Draft Divert EIS Appendix A

A-1

Cooperating Agency Request Letter to the Department of the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps September 20, 2011


A-2

Cooperating Agency Request Letter to Department of Interior, Office of Insular Affairs October 21, 2011


A-3

Cooperating Agency Request Letter to Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 21, 2011


A-4

Cooperating Agency Request Letter to Federal Aviation Administration October 21, 2011


A-5

Cooperating Agency Response Letter from the Department of the Navy November 4, 2011


A-6

Cooperating Agency Response Letter from the Federal Aviation Administration November 15, 2011


A-7


A-8


A-9


A-10


A-11


A-12


A-13


A-14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A P P E N D I X B

ESA Section 7 Consultation Supporting Documentation

Revised Draft Divert EIS Appendix B

B-1

Section 7 Consultation History

In addition to the letters and documents found in this appendix, interactions between the USAF and USFWS related to Section 7 consultation for actions on Saipan for this project took place over several dates between July 14, 2011 and July 1, 2013. The USAF submitted the Final Biological Assessment to the USFWS on September 10, 2012. The USAF received the Final Biological Opinion from the USFWS on July 1, 2013. On August 20, 2013, the USAF received a memo from the USFWS with three minor corrections to the Biological Opinion after signing.

Interactions between the USAF and USFWS related to Section 7 consultation for actions on Tinian for this project are ongoing. The USAF submitted a memo to the USFWS on July 8, 2015 requesting concurrence with the may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for nesting green and hawksbill sea turtles on Tinian. The USAF is awaiting concurrence from USFWS with this determination.

Interactions between the USAF and NMFS related to Section 7 consultation for actions on Saipan and Tinian this project took place between October 3, 2012 and October 30, 2012. The USAF sent a letter to NMFS requesting formal concurrence with the not likely to adversely to affect determination for threatened and endangered marine species on October 3, 2012. The USAF received a letter from NMFS stating concurrence with the not likely to adversely affect determination for threatened and endangered marine species on October 30, 2012.


B-2

Request for Section 7 Early Consultation/Meeting July 7, 2011


B-3

Response to Request for Section 7 Early Consultation/Meeting July 8, 2011


B-4

USAF letter to NMFS Requesting Concurrence with Not Likely to Adversely to Affect Determination,

October 3, 2012


B-5


B-6


B-7


B-8


B-9


B-10

NMFS Response Letter to USAF Stating Concurrence with the Not Likely to Adversely to Affect Determination,

October 30, 2012


B-11


B-12


B-13


B-14

USAF Letter to USFWS Requesting Concurrence with the Not Likely to Adversely to Affect Determination for Nesting Green and Hawksbill Sea Turtles,

July 8, 2015


B-15


B-16


B-17


B-18


B-19


B-20


B-21


B-22


B-23


B-24


B-25


B-26

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR HEADQUARTERS PACIFIC AIR FORCES DIVERT ACTIVITIES AND EXERCISES

IN SAIPAN

HEADQUARTERS, PACIFIC AIR FORCES JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAI‘I

AUGUST 2012 Revised Draft Divert EIS Appendix B

B-27

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ac acre

AFB Air Force Base

BA Biological Assessment

BEAR Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources

cm centimeter

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

dBA A-weighted decibel

DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level

DOD Department of Defense

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

F.R. Federal Register

GSN Saipan International Airport (Federal Aviation Authority international airport code)

ha hectare

lb pound

kg kilogram

km kilometers

mi miles

m meters

PACAF Pacific Air Forces

SUMB Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank

USAF U.S. Air Force

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Revised Draft Divert EIS Appendix B B-28

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR

HEADQUARTERS PACIFIC AIR FORCES DIVERT ACTIVITIES AND EXERCISES IN SAIPAN

HEADQUARTERS PACIFIC AIR FORCES (PACAF) JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, HAWAI‘I 96853-5233

AUGUST 2012


Biological Assessment for Divert Activities and Exercises

HQ PACAF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI August 2012 i

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR PACIFIC AIR FORCE DIVERT ACTIVITIES AND EXERCISES

IN SAIPAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................................... INSIDE FRONT COVER

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT AND PROJECT ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 PROTECTED SPECIES ADDRESSED .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 CONSULTATION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 1-3

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ACTION AREA.................................................................... 2-1

2.1 CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.3 ACTION AREA ....................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.4 IMPACT MINIMIZATION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES ................................................... 2-13

3. STATUS OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ON SAIPAN ....................... 3-1

3.1 NIGHTINGALE REED-WARBLER ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 MARIANA COMMON MOORHEN ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.3 MARIANA SWIFTLET ............................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 GREEN SEA TURTLE ............................................................................................................... 3-4

4. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 VEGETATION........................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.3 SURVEYS FOR NIGHTINGALE REED-WARBLERS .................................................................... 4-6 4.4 SURVEYS FOR COMMON MOORHENS ..................................................................................... 4-6

5. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 NIGHTINGALE REED-WARBLER ............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Impacts During Construction .................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Impacts During Implementation ................................................................................ 5-5 5.1.3 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................... 5-12 5.1.4 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 5-12

5.2 MARIANA COMMON MOORHEN ........................................................................................... 5-13 5.3 MARIANA SWIFTLET ............................................................................................................. 5-13 5.4 GREEN SEA TURTLES............................................................................................................ 5-13

6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 6-1

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 7-1



HQ PACAF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI August 2012 ii

FIGURES

2-1. Overview of Proposed Facility Locations at GSN ......................................................................... 2-3 2-2. Proposed Parking Apron, Hangar, and Maintenance Facility ........................................................ 2-5 2-3. Proposed Temporary Munitions Storage Area ............................................................................... 2-6 2-4. Proposed Hazardous Cargo Pad and Arm/Disarm Pad ................................................................... 2-7 2-5. Proposed Fuel Tanks and Site of the Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources 550 Initial

Housekeeping Set Kit ..................................................................................................................... 2-9 2-6. Proposed Site Plan for Two Fuel Tanks at the Port of Saipan ...................................................... 2-10 4-1. Vegetation Communities at GSN ................................................................................................... 4-3 4-2. Areas surveyed at GSN in 2012 ..................................................................................................... 4-5 4-3. Nightingale Reed-Warbler Territories Detected within Surveyed Areas at GSN, January–

April 2012 ....................................................................................................................................... 4-7 5-1. Proposed Project Facilities and Nightingale Reed-Warbler Territories ......................................... 5-3 5-2. Low Scenario Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at GSN

(USAF 2012) .................................................................................................................................. 5-7 5-3. Medium Scenario Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at

GSN (USAF 2012) ......................................................................................................................... 5-8 5-4. High Scenario Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at GSN

(USAF 2012) .................................................................................................................................. 5-9 5-5. Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at GSN (medium

scenario in USAF 2012) ............................................................................................................... 5-10

TABLES

2-1. Project Elements that Might be Constructed on Saipan ................................................................. 2-2 2-2. Impact Minimization Measures Required by the Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank

Biological Opinion. ...................................................................................................................... 2-13 5-1. Amount of Vegetation Communities to be Removed for Construction of All Proposed

Facilities at GSN (hectares [acres]) ................................................................................................ 5-2 5-2. Nightingale Reed-Warbler Territories at GSN, 2012 ..................................................................... 5-4



HQ PACAF, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI August 2012 1-1

1. Introduction 1

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) proposes to improve the Saipan International Airport (hereafter referred to by 2 the airport code GSN) and associated infrastructure to support expanding mission requirements in the 3 western Pacific. After completing an analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, the 4 USAF would consider developing and constructing facilities and infrastructure at GSN to support a 5 combination of USAF and joint cargo, fighter, and tanker aircraft and associated support personnel for 6 divert landings, periodic exercises, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 7

The purpose of the proposed project is to establish divert activity capabilities to support and conduct 8 current, emerging, and future exercises, while ensuring the capability to meet mission requirements in the 9 event that access to Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) on Guam or other western Pacific locations is 10 limited or denied. For example, the need for humanitarian assistance can arise suddenly and without 11 warning, such as disaster response in Japan during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. If this were to occur 12 during scheduled training exercises at Andersen AFB, training or response efforts might be delayed or 13 impeded. Furthermore, natural or man-made disasters could impact Andersen AFB’s missions, requiring 14 reliance on designed and designated divert airfield capabilities. Because of the proximity to 15 forward-deployed forces in the western Pacific, the Marianas provides the best alternative for 16 forward-deployed U.S. forces to train on U.S.-owned lands and to develop the proposed additional divert 17 capabilities. 18

The USAF and other services must achieve the missions mandated by Title 10 United States Code 19 (U.S.C.) in the event of a disruption of operational capabilities at Andersen AFB or other western Pacific 20 locations. To more assuredly achieve this mission, an additional location within the Marianas 21 Archipelago must have the capabilities to sustain USAF missions on a temporary basis. Facilities and 22 activities at GSN would not replace the capabilities at Andersen AFB, but would be an additional location 23 on U.S. territory in the western Pacific that can help ensure continued military readiness should access to 24 Andersen AFB or other western Pacific locations be limited or denied, such as during a training event, 25 humanitarian assistance efforts, or natural or man-made disasters. The need for this project is derived 26 from the following related operational requirements that are necessary to successfully support the mission 27 of the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF): 28

Ensure airfield accessibility if access to Andersen AFB or other western Pacific airfields is 29 limited or denied 30

Provide for contingency operations to include humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts 31

Accommodate future increases in operational tempo and associated training 32

Achieve and sustain readiness. 33

This project would develop critical enhancements at GSN to increase operational and divert capabilities 34 needed by the USAF, especially in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and joint exercises. These 35 enhancements are required for the USAF to maintain a state of military readiness commensurate with the 36 national defense and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. This project focuses on the 37 development and improvement of existing divert or contingency airfield capabilities and does not include 38 the permanent deployment or “beddown” of forces in the Marianas. Hence, construction activities for the 39 project are focused on improvements needed at GSN to increase USAF capabilities to respond to 40 emergent needs, to ensure forces that are diverted from Andersen AFB or other western Pacific locations 41 can continue to operate, and to train to these capabilities. 42




In summary, the proposed project is needed because there is not an existing divert or contingency airfield 1 on U.S. territory in the western Pacific that is designed and designated to provide strategic operational 2 and exercise capabilities for U.S. forces when needed and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in 3 times of natural or man-made disasters. Implementation of the project would support the PACAF mission 4 to provide ready air and space power to promote U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region during 5 peacetime, through crisis, and in war. For additional information on the purpose and need of the project, 6 see the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Divert Activities and Exercises, Guam and 7 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (USAF 2012). 8

1.1 Scope of Document and Project 9

The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to assess the potential effects of establishing divert 10 capabilities and associated operations at GSN on terrestrial species listed as endangered or threatened 11 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and their designated critical habitat. This BA addresses the 12 potential impacts of improving facilities at GSN. It also addresses implementation of divert activities and 13 exercises at the airport, including ground movements and immediate approaches and departures of aircraft 14 at the airport during unit-level training and exercises. It does not, however, address actual air warfare and 15 air logistics training (i.e., above 3,050 meters [m] (10,000 feet)) that would occur in the Mariana Islands 16 Range Complex or elsewhere by aircraft temporarily operating from GSN. Those air warfare and training 17 activities are described in the Mariana Islands Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/ 18 Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, May 2010 (DON 2010), and impacts on ESA-listed species 19 from those activities have been addressed in Biological Opinions developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 20 Service (USFWS) (USFWS 2010a) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2011). 21

The USAF has requested that this project be appended to the Programmatic Biological Opinion 22 Regarding the Reestablishment, Management, and Use of the Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank (SUMB), 23 Saipan (USFWS 2008a). This BA therefore considers and addresses the impact analyses methodologies 24 and mitigation measures described in the SUMB Biological Opinion. 25

1.2 Protected Species Addressed 26

There are 16 species listed as threatened or endangered that occur or have occurred in the Mariana Islands 27 archipelago (USFWS 2011a). Based on conversations with USFWS staff during informal consultation 28 (see Section 1.3), the USAF has determined that six of those species could occur in terrestrial 29 environments on Saipan: threatened Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), endangered 30 nightingale reed-warbler (Acrocephalus luscinia), endangered Mariana swiftlet (Aerodramus bartschi), 31 endangered Mariana common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus guami), endangered Micronesian megapode 32 (Megapodius laperouse), and threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). 33

The Mariana fruit bat and Micronesian megapode are restricted to forested habitats, primarily on the 34 northern part of the island (USFWS 1998a, 2009a). Land at and surrounding GSN where facilities would 35 be developed and divert activities and exercises would occur has been cleared of native vegetation or is 36 vegetated with second-growth forests dominated by tangantangan (Leucaena leucocephala). Due to lack 37 of suitable habitat within the action area, and based on discussions with the USFWS in January 2012, 38 systematic surveys for these species were not conducted for this project. However, during surveys of the 39 action area conducted in 2012 for other rare species and to characterize avian populations (MES 2012), 40 observers were vigilant for megapodes and flying and roosting fruit bats. Even though observation times 41 of those surveys were favorable for detection of these species, no fruit bats or megapodes were observed 42 or heard during any of the surveys. In addition, no optimal habitat was found in the areas surveyed of 43 sufficient quality or quantity to support these species. Because these species are rare or do not occur on 44




the southern part of Saipan and there is no habitat for them within the action area, the USAF concludes 1 that developing divert capabilities and conducting divert activities and exercises at GSN will have no 2 affect on the Mariana fruit bat and Micronesian megapode, and those species are not discussed further in 3 this BA. 4

In addition to the threatened green sea turtle, the endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys 5 imbricata), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) 6 can occur in the ocean surrounding Saipan. The USAF will consult with the National Oceanic and 7 Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service as required by the ESA to address impacts of their 8 proposed project on those species in the marine environment, and those species are not addressed in this 9 BA. 10

Six species classified as candidates for listing under the ESA occur in the Commonwealth of the Northern 11 Mariana Islands (CNMI) (76 Federal Register [FR] 66370). Two of those species, the Mariana eight-spot 12 butterfly (Hypolimnas octocula mariannensis) and humped tree snail (Partula gibba) might occur on 13 Saipan. Although host plants used by the Mariana eight-spot butterfly (Procris pedunculata and 14 Elatostema calcareum) occur on Saipan, this butterfly has not been detected there in recent years and it 15 could be extirpated from the island (USFWS 2011b). The humped tree snail is known to occur on Saipan, 16 but its preferred habitat of cool, shaded forests or other areas with high humidity (USFWS 2011c) does 17 not occur within the upland areas that might be developed for the USAF’s proposed project (MES 2012). 18 Although a few scattered individuals of host plant species (e.g., papaya [Carica papaya], coconut palm 19 [Cocos nucifera], hodda [Ficus tinctoria], and sumac [Aidia cochichinensis]) were found within the 20 project survey areas during surveys conducted on and around GSN in 2012, Mariana eight-spot butterflies 21 and humped tree snails were not detected and the host plants do not appear to be of sufficient abundance 22 or have the characteristics necessary to support a population of either candidate species. It is therefore 23 unlikely that the proposed project would have any adverse effect on these candidate species and they are 24 not further discussed in this BA. 25

1.3 Consultation History 26

The following interactions between the USAF and USFWS related to this project have occurred. 27

July 14, 2011 – USAF and USFWS staff met in the USFWS office in Honolulu, Hawaii, to 28 introduce the project, obtain a list of protected species that might occur in the project area, and 29 discuss the consultation process. 30

July 15, 2011 – Staff from HDR, a contractor working for PACAF, requested of the USFWS 31 information about the nightingale reed-warbler survey protocol and about the SUMB. The 32 requested information was sent by USFWS staff on July 18. 33

September 7, 2011 – Staff from HDR requested copies of Biological Opinions for the SUMB 34 and for activities at and near GSN. Those Biological Opinions were sent by USFWS staff on 35 September 23. 36

January 5, 2012 – USAF and USFWS staff met in the USFWS office in Honolulu, Hawaii, to 37 discuss plans for nightingale reed-warbler surveys and potential impacts on that and other species. 38

May 31, 2012 – USAF and USFWS staff met in the USFWS office in Honolulu, Hawaii, to 39 discuss the results of surveys conducted for threatened and endangered species and the process 40 for completing the consultation. 41

July 6, 2012 – USAF and USFWS staff met in the USFWS office in Honolulu, Hawaii, to discuss 42 USFWS comments on the Draft EIS for this project. 43




July 19, 2012 – USAF submitted a draft of this BA to the USFWS for review. 1

July 27, 2012 – USAF and USFWS staff had a phone conversation to discuss USFWS comments 2 on the draft BA. 3

August 8, 2012 – USFWS provided by email additional comments on the draft BA. 4




2. Project Description and Action Area 1

This section describes the USAF plan to develop airfield operational capabilities at GSN, exercise divert 2 and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief airlift staging capabilities, conduct joint military exercises, 3 implement fueling and fuel storage, and develop billeting and other personnel requirements. This section 4 also identifies the action area that could be directly or indirectly affected by developing divert capabilities 5 and conducting divert activities and exercises on Saipan, and the measures that the USAF would take to 6 avoid and minimize impacts on threatened and endangered species. Additional details about this 7 proposed project are in the associated EIS (USAF 2012). 8

The USAF proposes to improve facilities and infrastructure at GSN to support a combination of USAF 9 and joint cargo, fighter, and tanker aircraft and associated support personnel for divert landings, periodic 10 exercises, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Divert landings and humanitarian assistance 11 and disaster relief would occur at the airport as required. The expanded facilities would be used on an 12 as-needed basis and would not be used as a permanent full-time beddown or installation location. 13

GSN would be improved to an airfield design that can accommodate up to 12 KC-135 or similar aircraft. 14 This airfield design would also accommodate other military cargo and tactical aircraft. Because the space 15 required to accommodate large heavy lift cargo aircraft is approximately twice as large as what is required 16 to support fighter and tactical aircraft, it is assumed that up to 24 fighter or tactical aircraft could be 17 diverted to or exercised from GSN simultaneously, or a mix of fighter, tactical, and heavy lift cargo 18 aircraft (e.g., 10 large cargo aircraft and 4 fighters) aircraft could be diverted to or exercised from GSN 19 simultaneously as long as the mix does not exceed airfield design capabilities. The number of temporary 20 support personnel accompanying the aircraft would not exceed 700, regardless of what mix of aircraft is 21 diverted to or exercised from GSN. 22

2.1 Construction 23

To reduce strain on existing airport and commercial facilities and infrastructure, the USAF would 24 construct and expand new facilities, rather than fully utilize existing facilities during the construction and 25 implementation phases. These new facilities could include an expanded runway; associated pavement 26 markings and lighting; parking aprons; temporary munitions storage area; hazardous cargo pad; an 27 arm/disarm pad; aircraft hangar; maintenance facility; jet fuel receiving, storage, and distribution system; 28 and navigational aids. Temporary billeting facilities could also be developed at the airport. The total size 29 of these facilities, if they are all constructed, would be about 26 hectares (ha) (63 acres [ac]); 24 ha 30 (59 ac) would be at GSN and 2 ha (4 ac) would be at the Port of Saipan (see Table 2-1). 31

The projected timeline for the completion of most or all construction is 24 to 36 months. However, the 32 timing of construction would depend on the completion of a Safety Management Plan and agreement by 33 the Federal Aviation Administration, Commonwealth Ports Authority, and commercial carriers. 34

Facilities at GSN and the Port of Saipan would be constructed in phases. The USAF currently plans to 35 construct the bulk fuels tank, maintenance facility, and hazardous cargo pad in the first phase of 36 construction, one or both parking aprons and the remainder of the airport fuel system in the second phase, 37 and the fuel storage tanks at the Port of Saipan in a third phase. Depending on mission needs and 38 Congressional authorization and appropriations, some project elements might not be completed on 39 Saipan, or a smaller facility than listed in Table 2-1 could be developed. For example, the USAF might 40 decide not to extend one or both ends of the GSN runway, or might decide not to construct the entire 41 parking apron. This BA addresses all project elements listed in Table 2-1; however, as described further 42 in Section 2.4, the USAF would mitigate impacts separately for each project phase as projects are 43 authorized and appropriated by Congress. 44




Table 2-1. Project Elements that Might be Constructed on Saipan 1

Project Element Approximate Size hectares (acres)

Maximum Runway Extension 3.6 (8.9) Parking Apron 8.9 (22.1) Temporary Munitions Storage Area 0.4 (1.0) Hazardous Cargo Pad and Arm/Disarm Pad 1.8 (4.5) Aircraft Hangar 0.3 (0.8) Maintenance Facility 0.04 (0.1) Fuel Storage and Fueling Infrastructure - GSN 3.6 (8.9) Fuel Receipt and Storage – Port of Saipan 1.8 (4.4) Billeting 5.0 (12.3)

Total 25.5 (63.0)

Runway. The runway at GSN is 2,650 m (8,700 feet) long by 45 m (150 feet) wide and has two 2 8-m- (25-foot-) wide paved shoulders. To support operational requirements of the KC-135 and other 3 cargo aircraft, the USAF could extend the runway to a total length of 2,850 or 3,070 m (9,350 or 4 10,075 feet). If the runway were to be extended to the maximum length, it would be lengthened by 220 m 5 (725 feet) to the west and 200 m (650 feet) to the east. If extended to 2,850 m (9,350 feet), the eastern 6 end of the runway would be lengthened by 200 m (650 feet); the western end would not be altered. For 7 both options, the width of the runway would remain 45 m (150 feet) with 8-m- (25-foot-) wide paved 8 shoulders, and would also include turnarounds. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic site plan of the proposed 9 airport additions, including the possible eastern and western runway extensions. The runway extensions 10 would only be used for emergency take-offs and landings and would be striped (and marked) as 11 “unusable” by all commercial (on a daily basis) and military aircraft (during exercises). 12

The runway extension(s) would have a 31-centimeter (cm) (12-inch) base and 36 cm (14 inches) of 13 concrete. A substantial amount of structural fill would be required to extend the runway; that fill would 14 be obtained from existing quarries or borrow pits on the island located approximately 6 kilometers (km) 15 (4 miles [mi]) from the airfield. If existing quarries cannot provide all material necessary to expand the 16 runway and construct other planned facilities, the quarry operator or USAF, as appropriate, would consult 17 separately on the potential impacts on threatened or endangered species of expanding a quarry or opening 18 and operating a new quarry. 19

Concrete needed to construct the runway and other elements would be mixed at existing locally 20 contracted commercial facilities that operate concrete batch plants. Dry cement would be barged to 21 Saipan using the supplier’s existing supply chain, and then trucked from the Port of Saipan to the 22 commercial concrete facility where the concrete would be mixed. Mixed concrete would be trucked from 23 the commercial concrete batch facility to GSN. 24

Pavement Markings, Lighting, and Navigational Aids. To accommodate a runway extension, the 25 existing medium-intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights would be 26 replaced with a 730 m (2,400-foot) approach lighting system with sequenced flashing lights on the west 27 end of the runway. The distance-remaining markers, runway end identifier lights, and precision approach 28 29




1

Figure 2-1. Overview of Proposed Facility Locations at GSN 2




path indicator systems also could be replaced and the middle marker and nondirectional beacon could 1 need to be relocated. In addition, the glideslope and localizer would be relocated if the threshold 2 locations are changed. The existing runway edge lights would be extended along the length of the 3 proposed runway addition. All proposed lighting system improvements are in accordance with Unified 4 Facilities Criteria 3-535-01, Visual Air Navigation Facilities. 5

Parking Aprons. To meet operational requirements, new ramp areas and parking aprons would be 6 constructed adjacent to the GSN taxiway to accommodate up to 12 KC-135 aircraft. To avoid existing 7 cultural resources, two separate parking aprons would be constructed adjacent to each other on the 8 northern side of the existing taxiway (see Figures 2-1 and 2-2), with up to six KC-135 parking spots on 9 each apron. The design strength would require a 31-cm (12-inch) base with 36 cm (14 inches) of concrete 10 for the entire ramp expansion. Lights would be installed on the northeastern boundary to provide 11 adequate security and operational lighting for night operations. Airfield lighting systems would include 12 only the lighting facilities required to support the aircraft operational areas. Controls and equipment vault 13 facilities would be included on the parking aprons as necessary to provide a complete and usable system. 14

Temporary Munitions Storage Area. A standard 7-Bar earth-covered magazine would be constructed to 15 store munitions removed from diverted aircraft temporarily until the aircraft can return to its place of 16 origin or planned destination. That magazine would be located approximately 535 m (1,750 feet) south of 17 the centerline of the runway and 355 m (1,160 feet) east of the GSN Aircraft Rescue Training Area 18 (see Figure 2-3). To adhere to minimum safety criteria and standoff distances in compliance with 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Manual 6055.09-M, Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards, and 20 based on the 534-m (1,750-foot) distance between the magazine location and the nearest inhabited 21 building (considered to be the runway centerline), the maximum quantity of munitions that could be 22 stored in the magazine would be approximately 37,650 kilograms (kg) (83,000 pounds [lbs]) net 23 explosive weight. 24

A multi-cube magazine also would be constructed as part of the temporary munitions storage area. The 25 earth-covered magazine would be approximately 29 m (95 feet) by 11 m (35 feet) and the multi-cube 26 magazine would be adjacent to the earth-covered magazine with a size of approximately 63 m (205 feet) 27 by 63 m (207 feet). The existing road infrastructure that connects the aircraft rescue training area to the 28 runway would be used as the primary munitions hauling route. 29

Hazardous Cargo and Arm/Disarm Pad. A hazardous cargo aircraft parking pad would be constructed 30 and used to handle munitions and other hazardous cargo from diverted aircraft safely, and would also be 31 used as an arm/disarm pad. To meet operational requirements and to adhere to minimum safety criteria 32 and standoff distances in compliance with DOD Manual 6055.09-M, DOD Ammunition and Explosives 33 Safety Standards, that pad would be located at the eastern end of the taxiway (see Figure 2-4) and the 34 maximum net explosive weight stored there would not exceed 4,990 kilograms (11,000 pounds). The pad 35 would be approximately 205 m (670 feet) by 113 m (370 feet) and would have a flow-through horseshoe 36 design to allow aircraft to taxi directly onto and off of the hazardous cargo pad from the taxiway. 37

Aircraft Hangar. An aircraft hangar would be constructed adjacent to the parking ramp aprons (see 38 Figure 2-2). This closed structure would be approximately 55 m (180 feet) by 60 m (195 feet), and 39 would be located adjacent to the parking ramp and apron. 40

Maintenance Facility. A 1,830-square-m (6,000-square-foot) maintenance facility would be constructed 41 north of the apron near an existing, pre-engineered building last used for commercial skydiving (see 42 Figure 2-2). That facility would be used to support maintenance of aircraft and aircraft spares 43 management. The facility would also be used to store pre-positioned equipment and materials needed for 44 maintenance of aircraft used in exercises and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts, including 45 aerospace ground equipment and vehicles. 46




1

Figure 2-2. Proposed Parking Apron, Hangar, and Maintenance Facility 2




1

Figure 2-3. Proposed Temporary Munitions Storage Area 2




1

Figure 2-4. Proposed Hazardous Cargo Pad and Arm/Disarm Pad 2




Jet Fuel Receiving, Storage, and Distribution. The USAF plans to maintain a 30-day supply of jet fuel 1 on Saipan. To maintain and deliver that amount of fuel, one DOD Standard Design 4.2-million-gallon, 2 cut-and-cover or aboveground bulk storage tank and associated pumps, valves, filtration systems, 3 emergency generator, and concrete work would be constructed to the north of existing airport facilities, 4 and two 0.42-million-gallon, cut-and-cover or aboveground operating tanks also would be constructed 5 near the bulk storage tank (see Figure 2-5). A transfer pumphouse, pumps, piping, filtration, valves, and 6 a pantograph/hydrant servicing vehicle test station also would be installed near the storage tanks to 7 support fuel storage and delivery. 8

Refueling capability for military aircraft would be provided at GSN using a combination of current 9 capability and installing a standard DOD-designed 9,085 liters (2,400 gallons) per minute Type III 10 hydrant refueling system adjacent to the new ramp. This refueling system would also tie into the existing 11 commercial airport fuel supply line (with minimum disruption to commercial aircraft operations during 12 construction periods) and the proposed parking apron expansion. One refueling hydrant would be 13 installed at each of the planned KC-135 parking spots on the apron. 14

To support delivery of jet fuel on Saipan, two aboveground 2.1-million-gallon tanks with pump, filter, 15 issue fill stand with two positions, and associated piping would be constructed near the seaport on 16 federally leased land. The location is adjacent to the U.S. Army Reserve Center between Beach Road and 17 Middle Road, inland from the existing commercial fuel storage area (see Figure 2-6). Existing 18 infrastructure at the port would be used to offload fuel from vessels. 19

Billeting. Temporary billeting, including medical, transportation, and dining services, would be required 20 for up to 700 personnel supporting aircraft operations during a divert landing, humanitarian assistance and 21 disaster relief airlift, or joint military exercise event. The USAF plans to accommodate support personnel 22 either by using commercial lodging on Saipan or temporarily installing a Basic Expeditionary Airfield 23 Resources (BEAR) 550 Initial Housekeeping Kit. 24

If the USAF were to use commercial lodging, no additional construction or improvements would be 25 needed at GSN. If the USAF were to use a BEAR kit for billeting, the kit would be established at GSN in 26 accordance with Air Force Handbook 10-222 Volume 2 Guide to Bare Base Assets. The proposed area 27 for the BEAR kit is approximately 5.0 ha (12.3 ac) and would require minimal vegetation clearing as it is 28 located in a previously cleared and disturbed field (see Figure 2-6). 29

2.2 Implementation 30

After completion of construction, the USAF would use GSN periodically and temporarily for ground and 31 air activities, aircraft support activities, and other airfield ground activities. A mix of joint cargo, tanker, 32 fighter, and other aircraft could be diverted to or exercised from the airfield. Activities conducted there 33 might include, but are not limited to, divert landings and take-offs, joint military exercises, jet fueling and 34 storage, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief airlift staging including non-combatant evacuation 35 operations, and billeting. 36

Divert Landings. Unscheduled aircraft landings, also known as “divert” landings would occur at GSN 37 when other locations in the western Pacific, for example Andersen AFB, are unavailable for landing, such 38 as during emergencies or natural disasters. Two types of unscheduled landings could occur there: diverts 39 resulting from malfunctioning aircraft or similar emergency situations in the air, and diverts caused by 40 natural or man-made disasters or activities at the airfield on the ground. Emergency divert landings, in 41 accordance with the 36th Wing Instruction 13-204, would occur on an as-needed basis when an aircraft 42 has malfunctioned or needs to land immediately due to an emergency. Other unscheduled diverts would 43 44




1

Figure 2-5. Proposed Fuel Tanks and Site of the Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources 2 550 Initial Housekeeping Set Kit 3




1

Figure 2-6. Proposed Site Plan for Two Fuel Tanks at the Port of Saipan 2




occur when the scheduled or planned location for landing is no longer accessible or operational, such as 1 during typhoons, earthquakes, or other natural or man-made disasters. During a divert event when the 2 scheduled or planned location for landing is no longer accessible or operational, the aircraft could 3 continue to operate from the divert airport for up to 30 days until a more permanent home base is 4 established. Aircraft conducting divert landings at the airfield could require refueling, maintenance, 5 temporary munitions download and storage, and billeting support. 6

Humanitarian Airlift Staging. Humanitarian airlift staging, including non-combatant evacuation 7 operations, would occur at GSN in the event of an emergency or disaster. Examples of this type of 8 operation include Operation Tomodachi, the DOD relief effort implemented following the 9 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan and Operation Fiery Vigil following the 1991 eruption of Mount 10 Pinatubo in the Philippines resulting in the evacuation of 20,000 people. For Operation Tomodachi, DOD 11 officials reported that at least 20 U.S. naval ships, 140 aircraft, and approximately 20,000 military 12 personnel were involved in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in and around Japan. At 13 least 227 tons of relief supplies and humanitarian supplies were delivered to Japan. For Operation Fiery 14 Vigil, Clark AFB was evacuated, and more than 20 U.S. Naval ships and their personnel sortied from 15 Subic Bay Naval Base to evacuate more than 20,000 personnel to Andersen AFB for further transport to 16 safe havens. This operation included around-the-clock arrivals from the Philippines, processing through 17 U.S. Immigration screening, and around-the-clock departures to cities of safe haven. 18

Emergency responses to natural disasters of this nature would require pre-planning and exercising for the 19 potential contingency. The joint military exercises required to prepare for and execute humanitarian 20 airlift and disaster relief missions in real world situations are described in the following sections. 21

Joint Military Exercises. A limited number of scheduled joint, combined, and unit-level military training 22 activities and exercises, as described and analyzed in the Mariana Islands Range Complex EIS (DON 23 2010) and associated Biological Opinions (USFWS 2010a; NMFS 2011), would occur at GSN. Those 24 exercises would focus on real-world proficiency in sustaining joint forces and detecting, tracking, and 25 engaging units at sea, in the air, and on land in response to a wide range of missions. 26

Joint military exercises are an important opportunity to bring together multi-service and multi-national 27 platforms that do not always have the opportunity to train or exercise collectively. The U.S. Navy, 28 USAF, U.S. Marine Corp, and military from other countries operate a variety of combat and 29 combat-support aircraft designed to meet joint and multi-national training objectives for many exercises. 30 These joint and multinational exercises are commonly referred to as joint-combined exercises. The 31 United States routinely deploys forces to train in the western Pacific. Joint and combined exercises and 32 training maintain a stabilizing presence in the region, while allowing U.S. forces and other nations to 33 practice joint-combined skills in peacetime to prepare for success during a contingency. 34

Examples of typical combined exercises include Valiant Shield and Cope North. Valiant Shield occurs 35 biannually and usually takes place in September. This exercise involves land and maritime forces from 36 U.S. Navy, USAF, and U.S. Marine Corp, combined with multi-national forces, including observers from 37 the Pacific Rim nations. Cope North occurs annually and typically takes place in mid-February and also 38 might include multi-national forces. Aircraft and personnel participating in these combined exercises 39 would be temporarily located at and operate from GSN for a combined total of about 60 days per year. 40 No more than 700 personnel would participate in exercises at GSN at any given time, with a typical 41 exercise population being a 12-ship fighter package of 145 to 170 personnel. In addition, unit-level 42 training would also occur at GSN to exercise the capability to conduct divert landings and humanitarian 43 airlift staging. 44

Jet Fuel Receiving, Storage, and Distribution. Receipt of jet fuel at the Port of Saipan would be through 45 the existing port commercial facilities. The ability to store fuel and transfer fuel from the receiving port 46




to the airfield would be developed. Once these elements are constructed, as discussed in Section 2.1.1.5, 1 they would be operated in support of divert landings, military exercises, and humanitarian assistance and 2 disaster relief efforts. 3

Jet fuel would be offloaded at the existing fuel offloading facility at the Saipan seaport from vessels that 4 are capable of navigating the harbor. Fuel would be offloaded into the two 2.1-million-gallon bulk 5 storage tanks to be constructed adjacent to the seaport (see Figure 2-6). Standard fuel transfer tank trucks 6 would be used to transfer fuel over existing paved roads from the port to the 4.2-million-gallon bulk 7 storage tank at the airport. It would take six tank trucks (37,855 liters [10,000 gallons] each) 14 days 8 working approximately 10 hours per day to fill the bulk storage tank at the airport. During scheduled 9 joint military exercises, bulk jet fuel at the airport bulk tank would be transferred to one of two operating 10 tanks, and the fuel would then be transferred to fuel tanker aircraft or other aircraft taking part in the 11 exercises. 12

Billeting. Temporary billeting would be required for up to 700 personnel that would support aircraft 13 operations at GSN during a divert landing, humanitarian airlift, or military exercise event. The USAF 14 plans to accommodate support personnel either by using commercial lodging on Saipan or a BEAR kit. If 15 the USAF were to use commercial lodging, the USAF and PACAF would enter into agreements with 16 local hotels to accommodate personnel in commercial lodging during planned activities such as exercises, 17 and local facilities and modular trailers would be used to conduct airfield support activities, such as 18 administrative functions. 19

If the USAF were to use a BEAR kit for billeting, it would include about 45 billet tents, showers, latrines, 20 12 administrative shelters, 2 Power Pro shelters, an alert shelter, and a mortuary. A 920-kilowatt 21 generator set and fuel bladders for the generators would also be installed. 22

The BEAR kit would be installed away from the existing taxiway and the future ramp, reducing the noise 23 level at the BEAR base, but close enough to service and support the operation. The planned area is 24 approximately 5.0 ha (12.3 ac) (see Figure 2-6). Access to the BEAR base would be through the service 25 road used to monitor and maintain the water wells in the area. A perimeter fence with two vehicular gates 26 and a pedestrian gate would surround the cantonment. An existing water source at the intersection of 27 Flame Tree Road and Airport Access Road would be used. At a minimum, a 5-cm (2-inch) waterline 28 would be installed to support the BEAR base from this location. A 21-cm (8-inch) sewer line with 29 manholes spaced 107 m (350 feet) apart would be installed from the BEAR base to the sewer main line at 30 the intersection of Flame Tree Road and Airport Access Road. 31

To operate the BEAR base on commercial power, a 1,200-kilovolt-ampere, 13.8-kilovolt to 32 4.16/2.4-kilovolt, pad-mounted transformer would be installed. Primary service to the transformer would 33 require 3-phase, 15- kilovolt cable from the nearest overhead utility to the pad-mounted transformer. 34

2.3 Action Area 35

As described further in Section 5.1, loss and degradation of nightingale reed-warbler habitat and 36 temporary disruption of breeding and other behaviors could occur at and adjacent to GSN during 37 construction of facilities and during implementation of divert activities and exercises. Noise from 38 military aircraft participating in divert activities and exercises could also temporarily disrupt the behavior 39 of nightingale reed-warblers under the flight paths at GSN. Mitigation for adverse impacts include 40 financial support provided by the USAF to conserve and manage nightingale reed-warbler habitat at the 41 Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank, located in the Marpi region on the northeastern portion of Saipan. 42 Because adverse impacts and mitigation could occur on the northern and southern portions of Saipan, the 43 action area is defined as the entire Island of Saipan. 44




2.4 Impact Minimization and Conservation Measures 1

Construction Impacts. The USAF will implement all measures to minimize impacts to nightingale 2 reed-warbler that are required by the Programmatic Biological Opinion Regarding the Reestablishment, 3 Management, and Use of the Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank, Saipan (USFWS 2008a). Those impact 4 minimization measures, as presented in the SUMB Biological Opinion and modified as described by 5 USFWS personnel during a meeting in July 2012, are presented in Table 2-2. In addition, the USAF will 6 not locate laydown yards or other temporary construction facilities in nightingale reed-warbler habitat or 7 within the 50-m [160-foot] buffer zone around territories described in Section 4.3. 8

Table 2-2. Impact Minimization Measures Required 9 by the Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank Biological Opinion. 10

No. Mitigation Measure

1 Prior to vegetation clearing, a biologist experienced in locating nightingale reed-warbler nests will search the area for active nests. If any active nests are located, they will be avoided using a 50-m (164-foot) buffer until the nest is abandoned or has actively fledged.

2

When possible, the use of very noisy (greater than 60 decibels A-weighted) heavy machinery should be limited to the non-active or non-peak breeding seasons or temporary noise barriers or buffer zones should be installed to protect nightingale reed-warblers using buffer zones or areas of connectivity.

3

When actions occur during the breeding season, a biologist experienced in documenting changes in bird behaviors should observe occupied nests during the use of heavy equipment. The biologist should record behavior before, during, and after noisy equipment use and document noise levels with a decibel meter. At the end of equipment use, the biologist should provide a behavioral observation report to the USFWS.

4 Adequate plastic construction fencing or brightly colored flagging will be placed and maintained around any avoided habitat (including buffer areas or adjacent parcels) to prevent impacts from construction equipment and personnel.

5 All on-site construction personnel will receive instruction regarding the presence of listed species and the importance of avoiding impacts on these species and their habitat.

6 All on-site personnel will receive instruction regarding the brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) and what to do immediately in case of a sighting.

7

A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan or similar approach that results in an implementation plan will be developed. The plan will incorporate measures to ensure that invasive species, including the brown treesnake, are not transported to Saipan via project materials or equipment. This plan will be reviewed by the USFWS to ensure the actions to eliminate or reduce risks are sufficient.

8

A qualified biologist will inspect all construction-related activities to ensure that no take of nightingale reed-warbler or destruction of their habitat occurs that is not authorized by the Biological Opinion. The biologist will have the authority to stop all activities that could result in such take or destruction until appropriate corrective measures have been completed. The biologist also will report immediately any unauthorized impacts to the USFWS and CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife.

9 A brief summary report will be provided to the USFWS within 30 days of project implementation to document implementation of any fencing, buffer zones, and minimization measures.

Source: USFWS 2008a




Habitat Loss. The USAF will purchase one credit from the SUMB for each nightingale reed-warbler 1 territory that is cleared of vegetation during project construction. As required by the SUMB Biological 2 Opinion, if more than 29 percent of a territory is cleared or otherwise destroyed, the USAF will purchase 3 one credit to compensate for the loss of that territory. If less than 29 percent of a territory is directly 4 affected, the USAF will purchase a partial credit equal to the proportion of the territory cleared of 5 vegetation or otherwise disturbed. 6

As described in Section 2, the USAF plans to construct facilities at GSN in stages and, depending on 7 mission needs and Congressional authorization and appropriations, some project elements might not be 8 completed on Saipan. The USAF, therefore, cannot state with certainty at this time whether or how many 9 territories would be directly or indirectly affected by construction of facilities at GSN. Prior to the 10 construction start each fiscal year or phase of construction, the USAF will present a construction plan to 11 the USFWS and CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife and will purchase the number of credits required to 12 mitigate for the direct impacts of construction activities planned for that year or phase. 13

To mitigate for the indirect impacts on nightingale reed-warblers during the implementation phase of this 14 project (see Section 5.1.2), the USAF will purchase credits or otherwise fund conservation activities at 15 the SUMB conservation area as required in the SUMB Biological Opinion. That mitigation will be 16 implemented prior to initiation of the first training exercise at GSN that results in the level of indirect 17 impacts to be mitigated, as determined during the formal consultation. 18

Invasive Species. To reduce or eliminate the spread of brown treesnakes and other nonnative species 19 during development, maintenance, and operation of facilities at GSN, the USAF will develop, submit to 20 the USFWS for review, and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plans (or equivalent) 21 as required by the SUMB Biological Opinion, including plans for receipt of materials and equipment 22 shipped to Saipan for construction and implementation of the project. Those Plans, and all associated 23 implementing instructions developed by the USAF, Joint Region Marianas, and other involved military 24 organizations, will be compliant with the invasive species interdiction and control requirements in the 25 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 110-417, Section 316 (2009), and DOD 26 Defense Transportation Regulations, Chapter 505 protocols. At a minimum, those plans and 27 implementing instructions will address the following as appropriate, based on the specifics of each 28 activity. 29

One-hundred percent inspection of all outgoing aircraft and materials from Andersen Air Force 30 Base and Naval Base Guam, as currently required by Joint Region Marianas Instruction 5090.4, 31 using trained quarantine officers and dog detection teams, and redundant inspections conducted 32 on Saipan during project development and training activities. 33

Protocols and procedures for inspection of commercial materials and equipment being shipped 34 from elsewhere on Guam, and from other locations, to GSN. 35

Use existing or new, temporary or permanent, snake-free quarantine areas on Saipan for 36 inspection of cargo traveling from Guam to Saipan when applicable. Those areas will be subject 37 to (1) multiple day and night searches with appropriately trained interdiction canine teams that 38 meet performance standards, (2) snake trapping, and (3) visual inspections for snakes. 39

Support of rapid response actions to brown treesnake sightings at GSN or the fuel facility at the 40 Port of Saipan. 41

Invasive species awareness training for all military and contractor personnel. 42

As stated in Section 1.2, this biological assessment does not address air warfare and air logistics training 43 that would occur in the Mariana Islands Range Complex or elsewhere by aircraft temporarily operating 44




from GSN. Impacts on ESA-listed species from those activities, and the requirements for the control and 1 interdiction of invasive species, have been addressed in Biological Opinions developed by the U.S. Fish 2 and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010a) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries 3 Service (formerly National Marine Fisheries Service) (NMFS 2011). Section 7 consultations also have 4 been completed, and requirements for invasive species control and interdiction have been developed, for 5 other ongoing for military training and operations in the Mariana Islands (e.g., USFWS 2006a, 2008b). 6 Those control and interdiction requirements include the following. 7

Direct routing of personnel and cargo to GSN to avoid Guam seaports and airfields when possible 8

Inspections of all outgoing aircraft and equipment from Guam and redundant inspections on 9 Saipan 10

Establishment and operation of snake-free quarantine areas when applicable 11

Environmental education of personnel 12

Self inspection of equipment by service members 13

Pathway analyses for all activities or groups of activities 14

Involvement of the USFWS, Department of Agriculture, and other agencies in the development 15 and implementation of protocols and practices 16

Participation in the development and implementation of the Regional Biosecurity Plan. 17

The above requirements for control and interdiction of invasive species are incorporated into 18 implementing instructions developed by Joint Region Marianas and other involved military organizations, 19 and those instructions will be followed for all military training activities and exercises on and from GSN. 20 The instructions are updated as necessary to incorporate changes resulting from new policies and 21 practices and to include revised or additional requirements resulting from applicable Section 7 22 consultations. 23

The USAF acknowledges that there is a limited availability of inspectors, trained dogs, and quarantine 24 facilities and equipment on Guam and in the CNMI. Planning for training exercises generally begins 25 months prior to implementation of an exercise, and planning for complex training that would require a 26 substantial number of inspectors, quarantine areas, or other personnel or equipment for control and 27 interdiction of invasive species generally would begin more than a year in advance of the exercise. 28 During that planning period, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and CNMI Department of Land and 29 Natural Resources (the agencies responsible for conducting searches for and interdiction of brown 30 treesnakes on Guam and the CNMI, respectively), USFWS, USAF, Joint Region Marianas staff 31 responsible for managing their brown treesnake program, CNMI Department of Lands and Natural 32 Resources staff, and other participants will cooperatively identify the inspection and interdiction 33 requirements for the exercise, including the number of trained quarantine officers and dog detection 34 teams. The USAF and those other agencies will also develop plans to ensure that inspection personnel are 35 available and that all requirements can be met, and will identify the support that the USAF will need to 36 provide for the inspections. 37




3. Status of Threatened and Endangered Species on Saipan 1

This section summarizes information on the status and ecology of four threatened or endangered species 2 that occur on Saipan. It does not discuss the Mariana fruit bat and Micronesian megapode, because, as 3 described in Section 1, the USAF has determined that developing divert capabilities and conducting 4 divert activities and exercises at GSN will have no affect on those species. 5

3.1 Nightingale Reed-Warbler 6

The following description of the nightingale reed-warbler comes primarily from the following sources, 7 which are incorporated by reference. 8

Recovery Plan for the Nightingale Reed-Warbler (USFWS 1998b) 9

Programmatic Biological Opinion Regarding the Reestablishment, Management and Use of the 10 Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank, Saipan (USFWS 2008a) 11

Nightingale Reed-Warbler 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2010b). 12

Section 4.3 describes the results of surveys conducted around GSN to determine the abundance of 13 nightingale reed-warblers in areas that could be directly and indirectly affected by the project. 14

Legal Status. The nightingale reed-warbler was listed under the ESA as endangered in 1970 15 (35 FR 18319). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. The current recovery plan for the 16 nightingale reed-warbler was published in 1998 (USFWS 1998b). 17

Description and Taxonomy. The nightingale reed-warbler is approximately 16 to 21 cm (6 to 8 inches) 18 long, grey to olive brown above, pale yellow below, and has a relatively long bill. Males are slightly 19 larger than females. This species is in the marsh warbler family Acrocephalidae (USFWS 2008a). 20

Distribution and Abundance. There are three recognized subspecies of nightingale reed-warbler: 21 A. l. luscinia on Guam, Saipan, and Alamagan; A. l. nijoi on Aguiguan; and A. l. yamashinae on Pagan. 22 There is prehistoric evidence that this species also occurred on Tinian, but it does not occur there now. 23 Cibois et al. (2011) suggested that the nightingale reed-warbler on these islands might be separate species. 24

A volcanic eruption on Pagan in 1981 destroyed the only known habitat on that island and 25 A. l. yamashinae is believed to be extinct. A. l. nijoi on Aguiguan are rare and might also be extinct. 26 A. l. luscinia have been extirpated from Guam and now occur only on Saipan and Alamagan (USFWS 27 2008a, 2010b). Less than 500 individuals are believed to occur on Alamagan (USFWS 2010a, p. 40). 28

Camp et al. (2009) summarized the results of islandwide forest bird surveys on Saipan over the previous 29 three decades and reported that the number of nightingale reed-warbler detections had decreased from 287 30 in 1982, to 190 in 1987, to 118 in 2007. Density estimates per square kilometer of suitable habitat 31 subsequently declined as a result of decreased detections in the respective survey years (58 birds, 1982; 32 40 birds, 1987; 23 birds, 2007). Based on the 2007 islandwide forest bird survey, the population estimate 33 for nightingale reed-warblers on Saipan is 2,742 (Camp et al. 2009). 34

Habitat. Nightingale reed-warblers are found on Saipan in a variety of vegetation associations and are 35 most abundant in areas of dense understory, including open, secondary, and tangantangan forests; 36 elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) meadows; marshes; and wetland and forest edges. The species is 37 uncommon or absent from residential areas, golf courses, limestone forests, beach strand, and swordgrass 38




(Miscanthus floridulus) savannah (Craig 1992, Mosher and Fancy 2002, USFWS 2008a, Camp et al. 1 2009). 2

Diet. The nightingale reed-warbler feeds primarily on insects and their larvae. Their diet also includes 3 geckos, lizards, spiders, and snails. Nestlings are fed a variety of food items, including small caterpillars, 4 large spiders, grasshoppers, skinks, geckos, ants, beetles, millipedes, moths, and praying mantids 5 (USFWS 1998b). 6

Threats. Habitat loss and degradation is a primary threat to the nightingale reed-warbler on Saipan. 7 Intensive agriculture on that island during the first half of the 20th century caused the loss of a substantial 8 amount of wetland and upland habitat for this species. Much of that land has since reverted to 9 second-growth forest that is used by reed-warblers. However, many second-growth forests have been and 10 are being converted to urban development to support the large increase in the human population on 11 Saipan. The human population increased by 429 percent from 1980 to 2000 (Camp et al. 2009, 12 USFWS 2010b). 13

The establishment of the brown treesnake on Saipan would have serious impacts on this species. USFWS 14 (2010b) stated that the spread of the brown treesnake to Saipan would likely cause the extirpation of 15 nightingale reed-warblers from that island. The brown treesnake was the primary cause of the extirpation 16 of forest tree birds, including the nightingale reed-warbler, from Guam. 17

Predation by introduced species such as feral cats (Felis catus) and rats (Rattus spp.) could be reducing 18 the reproductive success of nightingale reed-warblers. Seventy-five percent of 28 active nests that failed 19 were preyed upon by those or other species (USFWS 1998b, 2010b). 20

Other threats to this species include environmental contaminants in wetland habitat, fire in upland habitat, 21 and the possible spread of the west Nile virus to Saipan (USFWS 1998, 2010b). 22

3.2 Mariana Common Moorhen 23

The following description comes primarily from the following sources, which are incorporated by 24 reference. 25

Mariana Common Moorhen Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992) 26

Distribution and Abundance of the Mariana Subspecies of the Common Moorhen (Takano and 27 Haig 2004) 28

Mariana Common Moorhen 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2009b). 29

Legal Status. The Mariana common moorhen was listed under the ESA as endangered in 1984 30 (49 FR 33881). No critical habitat has been designated for this species. The current recovery plan for the 31 common moorhen was published in 1992 (USFWS 1992). 32

Description and Taxonomy. The Mariana common moorhen is a slate-black member of the Rallidae 33 family, and is about 36 cm (14 inches) in length. The distinguishing physical characteristics of adult birds 34 include a red bill and frontal shield, white undertail coverts, a white line along the flank, and long 35 olive-green legs with large unwebbed feet. Males and females are nearly identical in appearance and are 36 difficult to distinguish from each other (USFWS 1992). 37

Distribution and Abundance. This species occurs on Guam, Tinian, Saipan, and rarely on Rota. The 38 USFWS (1992) identified two primary wetlands on Saipan that are used by common moorhens: Lake 39




Susupe and Puntan Muchot/Garapan. Takano and Haig (2004) counted 154 moorhen at 18 locations on 1 Saipan in 2001. 2

Habitat. The moorhen inhabits emergent vegetation of natural and man-made freshwater lakes, marshes 3 and swamps. The key characteristics of moorhen habitat appear to be a combination of deep (greater than 4 60 cm [24 inches]) marshes with robust emergent vegetation and equal areas of cover and open water. 5 This species is known to be wary and closely associated with cover provided by edge vegetation 6 (USFWS 1992, Takano and Haig 2004). 7

Diet. Moorhens feed on plant and animal matter in or near water. Observers have noted grass, adult 8 insects, and insect larvae in moorhen stomachs. Moorhen are probably opportunistic feeders, so their diet 9 varies among areas (USFWS 1992). 10

Threats. The loss of wetlands is the most important factor in the decline of common moorhens. Many 11 wetlands in the Mariana Islands have been filled or dredged for commercial or residential development. 12 Additionally, there has been a decline of traditional wetland agricultural practices such as taro and rice 13 cultivation, which has diminished the amount of wetlands available to the moorhen. Some wetlands have 14 experienced accelerated sedimentation due to land clearing, road building, grassland fires, and other 15 human activities. Predation by nonnative species such as rats and monitor lizards (Varanus indicus) 16 could also be adversely affecting this species (USFWS 1992, 2009b). 17

3.3 Mariana Swiftlet 18

The following description of the Mariana swiftlet comes primarily from the following sources, which are 19 incorporated by reference. 20

Recovery Plan for the Mariana Islands Population of the Vanikoro Swiftlet (USFWS 1991) 21

Relative Abundance and Distribution of Mariana Swiftlets in the Northern Mariana Islands (Cruz 22 et al. 2008) 23

Mariana Swiftlet or Chachaguak 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2010c). 24

Legal Status. The Mariana swiftlet was listed under the ESA as endangered in 1984 (49 FR 33881). No 25 critical habitat has been designated for this species. The current recovery plan for the Mariana swiftlet 26 was published in 1991(USFWS 1991). 27

Description and Taxonomy. The Mariana swiftlet has sooty black upper parts with a slightly paler rump. 28 The underparts are dark gray but with a brownish tinge. Some white is present at the base of the feathers 29 in the loreal region. The plumage of both sexes is alike. The average weight of adult swiftlets is 30 7.4 grams (0.3 ounces). The swiftlet is in the Apodidae family (USFWS 1991). 31

Distribution and Abundance. Swiftlets currently are known to occur on Guam, Aguiguan, and Saipan 32 (Cruz et al. 2008). The population in 2010 was estimated to be more than 5,000, with most located on 33 Saipan. This species currently nests in at least 10 caves on Saipan (MES 2012). 34

Habitat. On Saipan, swiftlets nest and roost in caves and their preferred foraging habitats include areas 35 over forests, clifflines, grassy hills, and grassy ravines (USFWS 1991, 2010c). 36

Diet. Swiftlets mostly eat insects that they catch while in flight (USFWS 1991). On Aguiguan, swiftlets 37 consumed primarily hymenopterans and hemipternas (Valdez et al. 2011). 38




Threats. Human disturbance at nesting colonies is an important threat to this species. Other threats 1 include predation by brown treesnakes (on Guam) and other nonnative predators, and the presence of 2 cockroaches and wasps in nest caves (USFWS 1991, 2010c). 3

3.4 Green Sea Turtle 4

The following description of the green sea turtle comes primarily from the following sources, which are 5 incorporated by reference. 6

Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle (NMFS 1998) 7

An Assessment of the Sea Turtles and Their Marine and Terrestrial Habitats at Saipan, 8 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Kolinski et al. 2001) 9

Green Turtle Nesting Sites and Sea Turtle Legislation Throughout Oceania (Maison et al. 2010). 10

Legal Status. The green sea turtle was classified as threatened under the ESA in 1978. The breeding 11 populations in Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico are classified as endangered; elsewhere the species 12 is listed as threatened (43 FR 32800). No critical habitat has been designated for this species in the 13 Pacific Ocean. The current recovery plan for the Pacific population of the green turtle was published in 14 1998 (NMFS 1998). 15

Description and Taxonomy. Green sea turtles have a smooth top shell with shades of black, gray, green, 16 brown, and yellow; their bottom shell is yellowish white. Adults can weigh 136 to 158 kg (300 to 17 350 lbs) and hatchlings weigh about 0.02 kg (0.05 lbs). Adults can reach 1 m (3 feet) in length and 18 hatchlings are about 5 cm (2 inches) long. Green sea turtles are in the Cheloniidae family. 19

Distribution and Abundance. The green turtle is globally distributed and generally found in tropical and 20 subtropical waters along continental coasts and islands between 30° north and 30° south latitude. This 21 species generally nests on Saipan from March through August with some year-round nesting documented. 22 It is estimated that possibly fewer than 10 individual turtles nest annually on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. In 23 1999, turtle activity was documented at eight beaches, with six nests found on a total of three beaches 24 (Kolinski et al. 2001). Monitoring of nesting activity on Saipan since 1999 has documented 4 to 18 nests 25 per year. At least five beaches on Saipan have been monitored somewhat consistently over the past 26 5 years: Bird Island, Wing, Tank, Lao Lao Bay, and Obyan beaches (Maison et al. 2010). 27

Habitat. Green turtles primarily use three types of habitat: beaches for nesting, open ocean convergence 28 zones, and coastal areas for feeding. 29

Threats. The principal cause of the historical, worldwide decline of the green turtle is long-term harvest 30 of eggs and adults on nesting beaches and harvest of juveniles and adults on feeding grounds. These 31 harvests continue in some areas of the world and compromise efforts to recover this species. Incidental 32 capture in fishing gear, primarily in gillnets, but also in trawls, traps and pots, longlines, and dredges is a 33 serious ongoing source of mortality. Green turtles are also threatened in some areas of the world by the 34 disease fibropapillomatosis. 35




4. Environmental Baseline 1

This section describes the current environment in the action area as influenced by past and present 2 impacts of human activities. The current environment, impacts of human activities on Saipan, and current 3 status of the nightingale reed-warbler on the island, have been described in detail in the following reports, 4 which are incorporated here by reference. 5

Recovery Plan for the Nightingale Reed-Warbler (USFWS 1998b) 6

Final Biological Opinion for the Proposed Rehabilitation of Runway 07/25 and Relocation of 7 Water Catchment Reservoir, Saipan International Airport (USFWS 2006b) 8

Programmatic Biological Opinion Regarding the Reestablishment, Management and Use of the 9 Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank, Saipan (USFWS 2008a) 10

Nightingale Reed-Warbler 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2010b) 11

Biological Report: Saipan International Airport Project Site, Saipan, CNMI (MES 2012) 12

Draft EIS for Divert Activities and Exercises, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 13 Islands (USAF 2012). 14

To support delivery of jet fuel on Saipan, two aboveground 2.1-million-gallon tanks and associated 15 infrastructure would be installed on previously cleared and developed land at the Port of Saipan 16 (see Figure 2-6). A portion of that flat site has a deteriorating asphalt surface, and fine limestone gravel 17 has been spread across most of the remainder of the site. There is a thin stand of dense, weedy vegetation 18 around the perimeter of the site; vegetation in the remainder of the area is sparse. This developed site 19 does not contain suitable habitat for nightingale reed-warblers or other ESA-listed species, and is not 20 described further in this section. 21

The remainder of this section describes in detail the environment on and around GSN, and the results of 22 surveys conducted to determine the presence of ESA-listed species and other biological resources in that 23 area. GSN is situated on approximately 285 ha (700 ac) in the southern portion of the Saipan (see 24 Figure 2-1). It is owned and operated by the Commonwealth Ports Authority under the Commonwealth 25 Ports Authority Act (Public Law 2-48), which was enacted in October 1981. The 2002 Saipan 26 International Airport Master Plan outlines the development strategy for the airport (Commonwealth Ports 27 Authority 2002). GSN facilities currently include a 2,650-m- (8,700-foot-) long runway and adjacent 28 taxiway and parking ramps and a terminal, cargo-handling facility, parking lots, drainage detention basin, 29 and other operational facilities to the north of the runway. GSN property to the south of the runway is 30 undeveloped and leased for cattle grazing. The land surrounding the airport is used primarily for 31 agricultural, recreation, and conservation. 32

Large portions of areas to the north and south of the current airport, including areas where the USAF 33 would construct facilities and implement divert activities and exercises, were developed before and during 34 World War II as aircraft parking areas, taxiways, and other airfield-related structures. Degraded aircraft 35 parking surfaces and other structures are still visible in some areas, although much of that area is now 36 covered with tangantangan. 37

The most recent development at GSN that affected listed species, and required consultation under 38 Section 7 of the ESA occurred after 2006. That consultation covered rehabilitation of the GSN runway 39 and relocation of a water catchment reservoir from between the runway and taxiway to its current position 40 to the north of the runway. The USFWS estimated that disturbance of about 10 ha (25 ac) for those 41 activities would directly affect nightingale reed-warblers in two territories and indirectly affect 42




reed-warblers in three other territories (USFWS 2006b). No other listed threatened or endangered species 1 were adversely affected by the project. 2

4.1 Vegetation 3

Vegetation communities at and around GSN were mapped and characterized during field surveys 4 conducted during October 2011. Vegetation community types observed at and surrounding the sites 5 where construction and improvements would occur include tangantangan forest, mowed fields, park 6 areas, and lands used for agriculture and grazing (see Figure 4-1), and are described in the following 7 paragraphs. 8

Tangantangan Forest. Canopy vegetation in tangantangan forest is characterized by a near monoculture 9 of nonnative tangantangan. The following forest tree species were most commonly observed within those 10 forests: ahgao (Premna obtusifolia), hodda, pago (Hibiscus tiliaceus), sumak, lada (Morinda citrifolia), 11 and papaya; and nonnative trongkon-kalaskas (Albizia lebbeck) and atbut or flame tree (Delonix 12 regia). The understory of tangantangan forest consists largely of nonnative herbaceous weeds. Common 13 species include coral berry (Rivina humilis), rosary pea (Abrus precatorius), Chinese violet (Asystasia 14 gangetica), and achyranthes (Achyranthes canescens). Gaps in the tangantangan forest and some areas of 15 canopy are blanketed by a layer of vines. These vines include the native akankang tasi (Canavalia rosea); 16 and the nonnative bittervine (Mikania micrantha), abubo (Stictocardia tilifolia), coral vine (Antigonon 17 leptopus), and ivy gourd (Coccinia grandis). Vines present in the area are stimulated by the opening up 18 of the canopy after storm disturbances and can form oppressive vine mats that retard the growth of, 19 or kill, native vegetation. 20

Mowed Fields. Mowed field habitat consists mainly of introduced grasses and herbaceous ground cover. 21 These fields occur between and around the airfield runways, taxiways, parking ramps, and associated 22 disturbed sites. They are characterized by grasses, including Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), 23 crowfoot grass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), broadleaf carpetgrass (Axonopus compressus), golden 24 beardgrass (Chrysopogon aciculatus), (Chloris sp.), and herbaceous weeds including the sensitive plant, 25 shameplant (Mimosa pudica), tropical lucerne (Stylosanthes guianensis), and white moneywort 26 (Alysicarpus vaginalis). 27

Park Areas. Parks at and near GSN are characterized by areas with grass that is mowed close to ground 28 level and that have narrow strips of ornamental trees and shrubs that have been planted primarily along 29 road edges. Grasses in park areas are characterized by Bermuda grass and golden beardgrass. 30 Ornamental trees that have been planted along road edges are characterized by atbut or flame tree and 31 several species of plumeria (Plumeria spp.). Hodda also occurs at several locations in the park areas. 32 Shrub species planted along road edges are characterized by bougainvilla (Bougainvilla sp.), lantana 33 (Lantana camara), and several species of hibiscus (Hibiscus spp.). 34

Agriculture/Grazing. Areas used for agriculture and grazing are located south of GSN within and near 35 the area where the munitions storage area would be located. That location is characterized by scrub 36 habitat with sparse trees. Adjacent areas include stands of tangantangan, grazed land, scrub habitat, and 37 agricultural plots that are fallow or planted with local crops. Grazed areas are characterized by a sparse 38 occurrence of trees including atbut or flame tree and mango (Mangifera indica) with a minor 39 occurrence of Ahgoa. Scrub habitat has a mix of shrub and herbaceous species dominated by lantana, 40 Jack-in-the-bush (Chromolaena odorata), nettleleaf velvetberry (Stachytarpheta urticifolia), and 41 romerillo (Bidens alba). Tangantangan occurs as short saplings scattered through the scrub habitat. 42




1

Figure 4-1. Vegetation Communities at GSN 2




4.2 Wildlife 1

Characterization of fauna occurring in and around GSN was based on incidental observation of species 2 during vegetation mapping conducted in October 2011 (USAF 2012) and during surveys for nightingale 3 reed-warblers and other avian species conducted from late January through early April 2012 (MES 2012). 4 Figure 4-2 shows the areas surveyed at and surrounding GSN in 2012. 5

Birds. During March 2012, 18 point-count surveys for birds were conducted in areas surrounding the 6 airfield (MES 2012). Those surveys were conducted between 0600 and 1000 hours. A total of 762 7 detections of birds of 14 species were recorded. The most commonly detected bird species was the 8 bridled white-eye (Zosterops conspicillatus), which accounted for 28 percent of avian observations. 9 Other species detected, in descending order of abundance, include the black noddy (Anous minutus), 10 white tern (Gygis alba), rufous fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons), island collared dove (Streptopelia 11 bitorquata), Micronesian starling (Aplonis opaca), orange-cheeked waxbill (Estrilda melpoda), 12 Micronesian myzomela (Myzomela rubratra), golden white-eye (Cleptornis marchei), white-throated 13 ground dove (Gallicollumba xanthonura), collared kingfisher (Todiramphus chloris), Mariana fruit dove 14 (Ptilinopus roseicapilla), nightingale reed-warbler, and yellow bittern (Ixobrychus sinensis). During 15 those surveys, observers actively searched for Mariana swiftlets and Micronesian megapodes; no 16 individuals of those species were detected. 17

Transect surveys were also conducted in 2012 at the water catchment basin located on GSN property 18 north of the runway and taxiway and at two artificial ponds at the Coral Ocean Point golf course located 19 west of the airport (MES 2012). The following six bird species were observed at the water catchment 20 basin: Eurasian wigeon (Anas penelope), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), green-winged teal (Anas 21 carolinensis), wood sandpiper (Tringa glareola), little egret (Egretta garzetta), and peregrine falcon 22 (Falco peregrinus). Nine bird species were documented at the Coral Ocean Point golf course east pond: 23 wood sandpiper, black-winged stilt (Himantopus himantopus), tattler sp. (Tringa sp.), black-tailed godwit 24 (Limosa limosa), Mariana common moorhen, common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), common 25 sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), yellow bittern, and marsh sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis). Six species were 26 documented at the golf course west pond: Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis dominica), wood sandpiper, 27 both white and dark morphs of the Pacific reef heron (Egretta sacra), yellow bittern, tattler sp., and 28 common sandpiper. 29

During the 2012 surveys, biologists located a black noddy rookery near GSN. The rookery was 30 approximately 205 m (675 feet) south of the proposed bulk fuel storage area, 195 m (640 feet) south of 31 the proposed operational fuel tanks and hydrant system, 440 m (1,115 feet) northwest of the proposed 32 maintenance facility, and 305 m (1,000 feet) north of the proposed west parking apron. There were more 33 than 60 noddy nests located mostly in a large Casuarina tree with some in an adjacent flame tree. Most 34 of the nests were active at the time of the surveys. There were also numerous white terns flying around 35 the rookery. It was not determined whether the terns were nesting in the area. 36

In November 2005, a biologist from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, conducted an 37 initial onsite assessment of wildlife hazards at GSN. Wildlife Services personnel determined the primary 38 threats to aviation safety at GSN included cattle egrets, intermediate egrets, Pacific golden plovers, 39 whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres), island collared doves, white terns, 40 black noddy, and brown noddy (Anous stolidus). Other birds present that could pose a slightly lower risk 41 to aviation safety included feral pigeons (Columbia livia), yellow bitterns, black-winged stilts, collared 42 kingfishers, Micronesian starlings, and Eurasian tree sparrows (Passer montanus) (USDA 2008). 43

Mammals. The only mammals incidentally observed during the 2011 vegetation mapping and 2012 avian 44 survey were rats (Rattus sp.), house shrews (Suncus murinus), and feral cats. No Mariana fruit bats or 45 optimal roosting or foraging habitat for that species were found during those surveys. 46




1

Figure 4-2. Areas surveyed at GSN in 2012 2




Reptiles and Amphibians. Green anoles (Anolis carolinensis), Pacific blue-tailed skinks (Emoia 1 caeruleocauda), green tree skinks (Lamprolipis smaragdina), and curious skinks (Carlia fusca) were 2 incidentally observed during the 2011vegetation mapping and 2012 avian surveys. Only one amphibian, 3 the marine toad (Rhinella marina), was observed in the area. [Note: Rhinella is a subgenus of the genus 4 Bufo. Rhinella marina and Bufo marina are both currently used synonymously.] Focused reptile surveys 5 were not conducted and it is likely that additional native and nonnative gecko and skink species are 6 present in the area. 7

Invertebrates. The following species of butterfly were noted during surveys. Eggflies (Hypolimnas sp.), 8 including blue moon and guardian, were frequently observed flying within and along the edge of 9 tangantangan forest. The blue-banded king crow (Euploea eunice), common grass blue (Zizina hylax), 10 large grass yellow (Eurema blanda), lemon migrant (Catopsilia pomona), cycad blue butterfly (Chilades 11 pandava), and common mormon (Papilio polytes) were also observed on mowed edges of the 12 tangantangan forest. 13

4.3 Surveys for Nightingale Reed-Warblers 14

Surveys were conducted for the nightingale reed-warbler to the north and south of the GSN runway 15 following the protocol developed by the USFWS (USFWS 2009c). As specified by that protocol, one or 16 two experienced observers walked designated line transects actively listening and watching for 17 nightingale reed-warblers (MES 2012). All reed-warbler detections were plotted onto project site maps 18 that were carried in the field. Playback recordings were not used to elicit responses. All surveys were 19 conducted between 0600 and 1000 hours and 1630 hours to sunset. Survey results were used to 20 determine the number of territories found on the project site. For this report, territories were defined as 21 areas where singing male reed-warbler detections were concentrated and then further delineated with 22 detections of males singing simultaneously. 23

Ten protocol surveys for nightingale reed-warblers were conducted between 21 January and 29 March 24 2012 in areas to the north of the GSN runway where the USAF proposes to develop facilities, and to the 25 south of the runway in the area of the proposed munitions storage facility (see Figure 4-2). Eight 26 nightingale reed-warbler territories were detected within the area surveyed north of the GSN runway 27 (see Figure 4-3). No reed-warblers were detected to the south of the runway. 28

4.4 Surveys for Common Moorhens 29

The only ponds or other potentially suitable habitat for the Mariana common moorhen within or near 30 GSN are the water catchment basin located north of the GSN runway and two artificial ponds west and 31 northwest of the runway on the Coral Ocean Point golf course (see Figure 4-2). Nine line transect 32 surveys were conducted around the entire perimeter of the water catchment basin and golf course ponds 33 between 28 January and 24 March 2012 to detect moorhens and other avian species (MES 2012). 34 Playback recordings were not used during those surveys to elicit responses from moorhens. 35

No moorhens were detected at the GSN water catchment basin or the golf course pond to the northwest of 36 GSN (labeled west pond on Figure 4-2). A single adult moorhen was seen at the east golf course pond on 37 25 February and 4, 10, and 17 March. That pond has an impervious lining that inhibits the growth of 38 shoreline emergent vegetation. The moorhen was seen along the southeastern, southwestern, and 39 northeastern shorelines, and was observed roosting in and taking cover under a Bougainvillea spectabilis 40 plant along the northeastern shoreline. 41




1

Figure 4-3. Nightingale Reed-Warbler Territories Detected within Surveyed Areas at GSN, 2 January–April 2012 3




Two reconnaissance-level surveys also were conducted in the tangantangan forests east and west of the 1 GSN runways (see Figure 4-2). More extensive protocol surveys were not conducted in those areas 2 because the USAF does not plan to develop facilities within, or otherwise directly disturb, those forested 3 areas. One singing male was detected west of the runway during one of those surveys. 4

Moorhens have been detected at the east golf course pond since about 2001 during surveys conducted by 5 or for the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife (Paul Radley, CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, 6 personal communication, March 26, 2012). 7




5. Effects of the Action 1

As described in Section 1.2, the USAF has determined that plans to establish divert capabilities at GSN 2 and conduct divert activities and exercises on Saipan would have no affect on the Mariana fruit bat and 3 Micronesian megapode. These decisions were based on the lack of suitable habitat for those threatened 4 and endangered species near GSN, and effects on those species are not further discussed here. 5

5.1 Nightingale Reed-Warbler 6

Development and construction of facilities and infrastructure at GSN to support divert landings, periodic 7 exercises, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief would result in the loss and degradation of 8 habitat for nightingale reed-warblers, and noise from those construction activities could temporarily 9 disrupt the behavior of reed-warblers living adjacent to construction areas. Noise, human activity, and 10 other disturbances during implementation of ground and air activities, aircraft support activities, and other 11 airfield ground activities could also temporarily disrupt the behavior of nightingale reed-warblers in areas 12 surrounding GSN. Transportation of equipment and personnel from Guam and other locations could 13 result in the introduction of invasive species into Saipan, including the brown treesnake; the USAF would 14 continue to implement practices to prevent the transport and release of brown treesnakes and other 15 invasive species. 16

5.1.1 Impacts During Construction 17

Development of all proposed facilities would require the disturbance of up to about 24 ha (59 ac) at GSN 18 and 2 ha (4 ac) at the Port of Saipan. In part to minimize impacts on nightingale reed-warblers, the USAF 19 plans to locate most of their facilities in existing developed areas or areas that are currently mowed or 20 otherwise periodically disturbed (see Table 5-1). However, because of the requirements to site some 21 facilities in specific locations (such as parking ramps next to the taxiway), and because of the lack of 22 cleared areas north of the existing GSN facilities, about 4.5 ha (11.0 ac) of tangantangan forest would be 23 disturbed to develop and construct all proposed facilities (see Table 5-1). 24

The following evaluation of potential impacts on nightingale reed-warbler territories is based on the 25 assumption that all proposed facilities will be developed. It is important to note that the USAF might not 26 develop all facilities, and the impacts on nightingale reed-warbler, and associated required mitigation, 27 could be less than that described. The following criteria in the SUMB Programmatic Biological Opinion 28 (USFWS 2008a) was used to determine whether nightingale reed-warbler territories would be directly or 29 indirectly affected. 30

“Direct effects include clearing of vegetation or otherwise destroying a territory. If 29 percent or 31 more of a territory is cleared or otherwise destroyed, then the entire territory will be considered 32 destroyed. If less than 29 percent of a territory is cleared or otherwise destroyed, then only that 33 portion of the territory will be considered directly affected and the remaining portion will be 34 considered indirectly affected.” 35

“Habitat will be considered indirectly affected when the remaining portion of a territory where 36 less than 29 percent is cleared of vegetation; or any portion of an adjacent nightingale 37 reed-warbler territory would be subject to increased risk from nonnative invasive plant or animal 38 access to habitat, feral ungulate access to habitat, predators…, human intrusion, erosion, or fire 39 risk due to implementation of the proposed project.” 40




Table 5-1. Amount of Vegetation Communities to be Removed 1 for Construction of All Proposed Facilities at GSN (hectares [acres]) 2

Facility Tangantangan Forest

Mowed Field Park Agriculture/

Grazing Disturbed/Unmowed

Runway extension (west) – 1.7 (4.3) – – –

Runway extension (east) – 1.9 (4.6) – – –

Parking apron and ramp (west) – 4.4 (10.8) – – –

Parking apron and ramp (east) 2.6 (6.5) 2.0 (4.9) – – –

Hangar 0.3 (0.8) – – – –

Temporary Munitions Storage Area

– – – 0.4 (1.0) –

Hazardous cargo pad and arm/disarm Pad 0.4 (1.0) 1.2 (2.9) – – 0.2 (0.6)

Maintenance facility 0.04 (0.1) – – – –

Billeting (BEAR) site – – 5.0 (12.3) – –

Operational fuel tanks and hydrant system – 1.3 (3.2) – 0.3 (0.7)

Bulk fuel storage 1.1 (2.6) – 0.04 (0.1) – 0.9 (2.3)

Port of Saipan fuel receipt and storage

– – – – 1.8 (4.4)

Total (acres) 4.5 (11.0) 11.1 (27.5) 6.3 (15.6) 0.4 (1.0) 3.2 (8.0)

“Where indirect effects can be minimized on-site, a buffer zone or fences will be used, as 3 appropriate. … An on-site buffer zone should be a minimum depth of 50 m [160 feet] from the 4 edge of the construction to the nearest nest otherwise that nest and territory will be considered 5 directly impacted.” 6

Eight nightingale reed-warbler territories were detected during 10 surveys conducted from 22 January to 7 27 March 2012 (see Figure 5-1 and Table 5-2). Reed-warblers were detected in most territories 8 throughout the survey period; however, they were detected in territory 5 from 11 February to 10 March 9 and in Territory 8 from 22 to 24 March (MES 2012). The area used by reed-warblers within those 10 territories during the surveys was calculated by measuring the minimum-sized convex polygon 11 encompassing all observations. Some of the areas used by reed-warblers during the survey period were 12 small compared to average territory size of about 4 hectares (10 acres) or larger reported by Mosher 13 (2006; USFWS 2010b). Only two detections occurred within territory 8; thus, the area used within that 14 territory was not calculated. 15

Construction of the east parking ramp would require the clearing of about 2.6 ha (6.5 ac) of tangantangan 16 forest, including 53 percent of the area used in territory 6 (see Figure 5-1). The breeding birds in that 17 territory would be displaced, and those birds likely would not survive or would have reduced reproductive 18 success. 19




1

Figure 5-1. Proposed Project Facilities and Nightingale Reed-Warbler Territories 2




Table 5-2. Nightingale Reed-Warbler Territories at GSN, 2012 1

Territory Size – Hectares (acres)

Distance to Nearest Proposed Facility – Meters

Nearest Proposed Facility

% Disturbed

1 2.5 (6.1) 70 Billeting 0 2 2.8 (7.0) 37 Bulk fuel tanks 0 3 3.8 (9.3) 12 Bulk fuel tanks 0 4 1.9 (4.6) 168 Maintenance building 0 5 0.2 (0.6) 213 Hanger 0 6 1.5 (3.8) 0 East parking apron 53 7 0.8 (2.1) 70 Hanger 0 8 n/a 335 Hot cargo pad 0

Construction of the east parking ramp would require the clearing of about 2.6 ha (6.5 ac) of tangantangan 2 forest, including 53 percent of the area used in territory 6 (see Figure 5-1). The breeding birds in that 3 territory would be displaced, and those birds likely would not survive or would have reduced reproductive 4 success. 5

The bulk fuel storage tanks would be installed adjacent to the areas used within territories 2 and 3 (see 6 Figure 5-1). Over half of the 2.1-ha (5.0-ac) site where the fuel tanks would be installed, including the 7 southern portion closest to habitat used by reed-warblers in those territories, was cleared and used as a 8 materials storage area temporarily during excavation of the GSN detention basin. Because a portion of 9 that site has been cleared, and the remaining vegetated area does not appear to be used, or is used 10 infrequently, by nightingale reed-warblers, there would be no direct effects on those territories. However, 11 as suggested by the USFWS (2006b) for other construction activities at GSN, noise, human activities, 12 lights, and other disturbances associated with the construction and operation of the fuel storage system 13 could indirectly adversely affect nightingale reed-warblers in those territories by disrupting or modifying 14 their behavior, further degrading nearby nesting or foraging habitat, causing an increase in predation, or 15 otherwise causing a decrease in reproductive output. Because there would be no loss of habitat within 16 those territories, and because a portion of the bulk fuel storage area already has been cleared, it is likely 17 that the territories would persist. As evidence of this likelihood, two territories that were predicted to be 18 directly affected by construction of the GSN detention basin (USFWS 2006b) persisted during 19 construction of that facility, and nightingale reed-warblers were detected in those areas as territories 5 and 20 7 in 2012 (see Figure 5-1). 21

The other five territories would be separated from facilities by a buffer of tangantangan forest of more 22 than 50 m (164 feet) (see Table 5-2), and thus would not be directly or indirectly affected, or would be 23 minimally affected, by construction. The nearest observations in two of those territories (1 and 7) were 24 about 70 m (230 feet) from the edge of a facility, but the majority of the detections in those territories 25 were more than 150 m (500 feet) from areas that would be disturbed. The other three territories would be 26 separated from proposed facility locations by a buffer of 150 to more than 300 m (550 to more than 27 1,000 feet). As shown in Figure 5-1, nightingale reed-warblers occur at GSN in close proximity to 28 disturbed areas with ongoing human presence; therefore, territories located at such large distances from 29 the facilities would not be affected by facility construction. 30




5.1.2 Impacts During Implementation 1

As further described in Section 2.2, after completion of construction, the USAF would use GSN 2 periodically and temporarily for divert landings and takeoffs, joint military exercises, airlift staging for 3 humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and other activities. All activities would be conducted within 4 existing disturbed and developed areas and would not result in any additional habitat loss. 5

During implementation of the project, nightingale reed-warblers living at and near GSN, including those 6 occurring in the tangantangan forests to the east and west of the runway, could be adversely affected by 7 an increase in noise, lighting at night, and human activities during divert activities and exercises. To 8 ensure that nightingale reed-warblers are not disturbed during activities and exercises, personnel would be 9 restricted to the developed facilities at GSN and would be briefed on that and other requirements for the 10 protection of nightingale reed-warblers and other listed species. In addition, if personnel are to be billeted 11 at GSN, the location of the BEAR facility would be temporarily fenced in part to keep personnel away 12 from nightingale reed-warbler habitat. 13

The increase in takeoffs and landings of large aircraft at GSN could cause more birds at GSN to be struck 14 and killed by aircraft. However, nightingale reed-warblers nest and forage in dense vegetation 15 (Craig 1992, USFWS 1998b) and therefore are unlikely to be struck by military or other aircraft taking off 16 from, or landing at GSN. 17

The periodic increase in frequency and intensity of noise from military operating during military exercises 18 at GSN has the potential to adversely affect nightingale reed-warblers living adjacent to or near GSN. On 19 average, about 13 large aircraft (e.g., 747-200 and 767-300 commercial aircraft), and 126 smaller aircraft 20 currently arrive or depart daily at GSN (USAF 2012, Section 3.1.2.1), and nightingale reed-warblers and 21 other animals living below the flight paths at GSN are exposed to noise from those takeoffs and landings 22 year round. During military exercises, which might occur at GSN as many as 8 weeks per year, up to 23 about 72 additional takeoffs and landings by large aircraft such as the KC-135 and smaller jet aircraft 24 such as the F-18 or F-22 could occur on a very busy day. 25

To compare the sound levels generated by those aircraft, sound energy level per aircraft type was 26 estimated at 1,000 feet from the end of the runway during takeoff. Sound energy level is calculated as the 27 sum of sound energy over the duration of a noise event (such as a flyover) and represents an equivalent 28 noise event with a one-second duration. Because the energy level is normalized to one second, it is higher 29 than the maximum sound level for that event. The actual sound level will vary depending on power 30 setting, accent and decent angle, weather, and other factors. Sound levels are reported here in units of 31 A-weighted decibel (dBA), which is weighted by the ability of humans to hear various sound frequencies, 32 and is used to characterize sound levels that can be sensed by the human ear. The auditory sensitivity of 33 birds to sound frequencies differ from those of humans; however, because there is no standard or 34 commonly used measure that characterizes sound levels sensed by birds, results are reported in dBA, 35 which is measured on a logarithmic scale. 36

The estimated sound energy level of a B-747 commercial aircraft during takeoff at 1,000 feet is 106.3 37 dBA. The sound energy level of a KC-135 (103.9 dBA) and F-16 (109.1 dBA) is similar, and the sound 38 energy level of an F-22 is higher (122.6 dBA). 39

To evaluate the potential cumulative increase in noise levels that would occur during planned joint 40 military exercises or other unit-level exercises, the USAF modeled and reported in the Draft EIS 41




(USAF 2012, Section 4.1.1.2) day-night average sound levels (DNL) for three noise-level scenarios, with 1 the following type and mix of aircraft (cargo versus fighter) for each scenario. 2

Low scenario—12 KC-135 3 Medium scenario—6 KC-135, 8 F-16, and 4 F-22 4 High scenario—12 F-16 and 12 F-22. 5

To model an average busy day for each scenario, it was estimated that all aircraft would complete 4 6 operations per day (2 arrivals and 2 departures) during military exercises. See the Draft EIS (USAF 2012, 7 Section 4.1.1.2) for other assumptions used in the calculations. 8

Figures 5-2 through 5-4 show predicted DNL contours for the low, medium, and high scenarios, 9 respectively (USAF 2012, Section 4.1.1.2), and Figure 5-5 shows a closer view of the predicted noise 10 surrounding GSN for the medium scenario. As shown in the figures, there would be an increase in sound 11 levels in the areas surrounding GSN on days when exercises are held there. For example, at Coral Ocean 12 Point Golf Course the predicted sound levels on a busy day are 69, 78, and 83 dBA DNL for the low, 13 medium, and high scenarios, respectively, compared to a current estimated annual average sound level of 14 63 dBA DNL at that location. Note that the USAF is discussing with its cooperating agencies and the 15 Commonwealth Port Authority potential mitigation measures to reduce the effects of noise on the 16 surrounding area, and would present those measures in the Final EIS. Based upon operational restrictions 17 agreed upon and implemented by the USAF, it is anticipated that noise levels on Saipan would be reduced 18 during training exercises; hence, the noise levels reported here and in the Draft EIS are considered a 19 “worst case” scenario and the USAF anticipates that the noise levels to be reported in the Final EIS would 20 be less than reported here. 21

Reviews of the effects of sound on animals are available (see Dufour 1980, Manci et al. 1988, Larkin et 22 al. 1996, Efroymson et al. 2000, Kaesloo and Tyson 2004), and studies referenced in those reviews have 23 documented that chronic exposure to continuous high sound levels (e.g., traffic, construction) and 24 exposure to high sound energy impulses (e.g., sonic booms, aircraft overflight) can cause physical 25 damage and hearing impairment; physiological effects; and changes in behavior, habitat use, and possibly 26 reproduction. Efroymson et al. (2000) describe a framework for conducting ecological risk assessments 27 of low-altitude overflights of military aircraft on wildlife, but concluded that there is insufficient 28 information available to apply the risk assessment methodologies to songbirds. 29

Exposure to high sound levels can cause physical damage to the ear, which can result in temporary or 30 permanent hearing loss (Dufour 1980). Studies of sound levels that can cause hearing impairment have 31 been conducted on laboratory and domestic animals, primarily mammals, but few studies of impacts on 32 birds, especially song birds, have been conducted. Larkin et al. (1996) described laboratory studies 33 documenting that long-term exposure of canaries (Serinus canaria domesticus) to sound at 95 to 100 dB, 34 and exposure of budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) to impulse sound with a peak energy level of 169 35 dB, caused an increase in hearing threshold (i.e., the minimum level at which sound can be detected). 36 However, these results might be of limited value for understanding whether the hearing of nightingale 37 reed-warblers would be adversely affected by military jets, as there are substantial differences in the 38 auditory sensitivity to intensity and frequency of sound among species (Dufour 1980, Larkin et al. 1996). 39 Nightingale reed-warblers currently are exposed to sound from commercial jets that are similar in 40 intensity to most military aircraft proposed to be used at GSN, but some aircraft, such as the F-22, are 41 substantially louder, and the frequency of exposure to loud aircraft would be greater during military 42 exercises. Male nightingale reed-warblers use calls to defend territories (Craig 1992) and probably to 43 attract mates; therefore, temporary or permanent hearing loss could cause a decrease in reproductive 44 fitness. Hearing impairment could also result in other adverse effects, such as an increase in mortality if 45 reed-warblers could not hear approaching predators. 46




1

Figure 5-2. Low Scenario Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at 2 GSN (USAF 2012) 3




1 Figure 5-3. Medium Scenario Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at 2

GSN (USAF 2012) 3




1 Figure 5-4. High Scenario Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at 2

GSN (USAF 2012) 3




1

Figure 5-5. Predicted DNL Noise Contours (dBA) During a Military Exercise at GSN 2 (medium scenario in USAF 2012) 3




Exposure to loud noises can also cause physiological changes in animals, such as an increase in blood 1 pressure and heart rate, changes in blood chemistry, and changes in digestive and respiratory functions. 2 Numerous studies of the physiological response of mammals to noise have been conducted (see reviews 3 by Dufour 1980, Manci et al. 1988, Larkin et al. 1996), but no studies have been done to measure the 4 physiological response of wild songbirds to noise, or to evaluate the long-term consequences of those 5 physiological changes on the survival or reproductive fitness of wild animals. 6

The most likely, detectable response of nightingale reed-warblers to an increase in takeoffs and landings 7 of loud aircraft, and to other noises at GSN, might be a temporary or permanent change in behavior. 8 Birds have been documented to abandon nests temporarily or permanently, avoid areas, and otherwise 9 modify their behavior in response to noise. Efroymson et al. (2000) summarize more than 40 studies or 10 observations of the response of raptors and waterbirds to overflights. Responses varied substantially, 11 with some birds flushing or otherwise reacting in response to aircraft passing more than 1 km (0.6 miles) 12 away, but many birds not reacting, even in response to overflights closer than 100 m (330 feet). The 13 response to overflights can vary with season or timing of nesting, and probably also in response to 14 numerous other factors. For example, Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) were less likely 15 to flush in response to noise early during nesting than later during the nesting season, but flush response 16 did not differ between the nesting and non-nesting season (Delany et al. 1999). Awbrey and Hunsaker 17 (1997) and Hunsaker et al (2007) documented a weak correlation between noise levels and number of 18 nesting attempts by coastal California gnatcatchers at Naval Air Station Miramar, but concluded that 19 noise from fixed-wing military aircraft and helicopters had no measurable effect on reproductive success. 20 Flushing from nests or other changes in behavior could have an effect on reproduction or survival. For 21 example, a sooty tern (Onychoprion fuscatus) colony had 99 percent nest failure in a year when low-22 flying, supersonic aircraft frequently flew over the colony; nest failure might have been, in part, due to 23 damage to eggs as females rapidly left their nests (Manci et al. 1988). 24

Birds and other wildlife have been documented to become habituated to aircraft overflights and other 25 noises after continuous or frequent exposure. For example, red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicansis) that 26 were previously exposed to helicopters exhibited less response than hawks that had not been previously 27 exposed (Andersen et al. 1989). Habituation also has been frequently noted when using noise-making 28 devices to scare birds away from crops or airfields (Larkin et al. 1999, Efroymson et al. 2000). 29 Nightingale reed-warblers living near GSN are exposed to numerous takeoffs and landings of commercial 30 jets daily and those birds, therefore, might not react in as strenuous a manner as unhabituated birds to the 31 infrequent and temporary increase in noise from divert activities and exercises. 32

Loud noises can also mask other sounds that are important to birds, such as territorial calls or the sounds 33 of approaching predators (Larkin et al 1996, Kaesloo and Tyson 2004). Because the noise from military 34 aircraft at GSN would be of short duration, most takeoffs and landings should not adversely affect 35 nightingale reed-warblers in this manner. However, if numerous aircraft take off and land over a short 36 period, nightingale reed-warblers might not be able to hear territorial calls or other sounds for an extended 37 period. 38

In summary, nightingale reed-warbler would be exposed to high sound levels when military aircraft take 39 off and land during exercises at GSN, which would occur up to 8 weeks per year. Those birds currently 40 are exposed to noise from commercial jets that are of similar or lower intensity than that of the military 41 aircraft that would operate at GSN. Similar disturbances and noise levels have caused other birds to flush 42 or leave their nests, and resulted in other adverse consequences. However, there is insufficient 43 information available to determine how nightingale reed-warblers at GSN would react to the increase in 44 frequency of loud overflights, and the increase in sound intensity during some of those overflights. In 45 addition, other than to generalize that nightingale reed-warblers with territories near GSN and directly 46




under the flight paths are more likely to be affected than birds living farther away, it is not possible to 1 specify where or how many territories might be affected by an increase in operations of loud aircraft. 2

To mitigate for the impacts of noise and indirect impacts on nightingale reed-warblers that will occur 3 during the implementation phase of this project, the USAF will purchase credits or otherwise fund 4 conservation activities at the SUMB conservation area as required in the SUMB Biological Opinion. 5

5.1.3 Invasive Species 6

The USFWS lists predation by introduced species as one of the two main threats to the recovery of 7 nightingale reed-warblers, and states that establishment of the brown treesnake on Saipan would result in 8 the extirpation of that bird, as occurred on Guam (USFWS 2010b). 9

Brown treesnakes and other invasive species could be released into Saipan when personnel and equipment 10 are transported from Guam and other locations for construction of facilities and during divert events and 11 exercises. To prevent this from happening, the USAF would continue their ongoing program of 12 interdicting the transport of invasive species in the Mariana Islands. As further described in Section 2.4, 13 this would include the following: 14

Developing and implementing a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan during 15 construction and maintenance and operation of facilities at GSN and the Port of Saipan 16

Inspecting outgoing aircraft, equipment, and materials from Guam with trained quarantine 17 officers and dog detection teams 18

Use existing or new, temporary or permanent, snake-free quarantine areas on Saipan for 19 inspection of cargo traveling from Guam to Saipan when applicable. Those areas will be subject 20 to (1) multiple day and night searches with appropriately trained interdiction canine teams that 21 meet performance standards, (2) snake trapping, and (3) visual inspections for snakes. 22

Implementing other interdiction and control requirements in the applicable Biological Opinions 23 (e.g., USFWS 2006a, 2010a) and associated implementing instructions for training exercises in 24 the Mariana Islands including but not limited to the procedures in JTREGMARIANAS 25 Instruction 5090.4 for inspection of equipment and gear. 26

5.1.4 Cumulative Effects 27

Reasonably foreseeable future activities that might occur on Saipan are described in Section 5.1 of the 28 EIS for Divert Activities and Exercises, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 29 (USAF 2012). Future Commonwealth or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the 30 action area include road development and widening; geothermal, solar, and other energy production; 31 improvement and expansion of water, wastewater, power, and other public works systems; and 32 development of commercial, residential, medical, and other facilities. Those activities, along with the 33 USAF proposal to clear 4.5 ha (11.0 ac) of tangantangan forest to develop infrastructure at GSN, would 34 contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat for the nightingale reed-warbler on Saipan. Those activities 35 would also cause an increase in noise during construction, habitat degradation, other indirect impacts that 36 would cumulatively adversely affect nightingale reed-warblers and possibly other ESA protected species 37 on Saipan. 38




5.2 Mariana Common Moorhen 1

A single Mariana common moorhen was observed during four of nine surveys of the east golf course 2 pond, which is about 0.9 km (0.6 mi) southwest of GSN. That pond has an impervious liner that prevents 3 the establishment of shoreline emergent vegetation and the surrounding vegetation is mowed or 4 maintained for operation of the golf course. Moorhens nest in wetlands with emergent vegetation 5 USFWS (1992), and it is, therefore, unlikely that moorhens nest at that pond. No moorhens were seen at 6 the two other surface waters surveyed near GSN (see Section 4.4). 7

During planned joint military exercises or other unit-level exercises, any moorhens located at the golf 8 course pond would be exposed to more frequent takeoffs or landing of aircraft. Sound levels from those 9 aircraft would be similar to or louder than the commercial jets at GSN. Noise from the take-off and 10 landing of those aircraft might cause Mariana common moorhens using that or other surface waters near 11 GSN to temporarily disrupt their behavior. However, because any bird using those ponds would be 12 habituated to frequent noise from current operations at GSN, and because the increase in noise from 13 divert activities and exercises would be infrequent, it is very unlikely that Mariana common moorhen 14 would avoid the use of those ponds. 15

Because (1) the surface waters near GSN are marginal habitat that are used temporarily by moorhens, 16 (2) birds there likely are habituated to noise from current operations at GSN, (3) any increase in noise 17 from divert activities and exercises would be temporary and infrequent, and (4) the ongoing program for 18 interdicting the transport of brown treesnakes and other invasive species in the Mariana Islands would be 19 implemented for this project (see Section 2.4), the USAF concludes that any adverse impacts would be 20 temporary and insignificant, and that developing divert capabilities and conducting divert activities and 21 exercises at GSN may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, Mariana common moorhens. 22

5.3 Mariana Swiftlet 23

Mariana swiftlets nest in caves located in central Saipan (Cruz et al. 2008) and favor ridge crests and 24 open, grassy areas for foraging (USFWS 1991). No swiftlets were detected during bird surveys 25 conducted at GSN during 2012, and the nearest cave used by these birds for roosting and nesting is more 26 than 3 km (2 mi) north of GSN (MES 2012). 27

The clearing of up to 4.5 ha (11.0 ac) of second-growth forest for this project would have an insignificant 28 adverse effect on the availability of foraging habitat for this species because tangantangan forest is 29 common in the area and is not preferred foraging habitat. In addition, any adverse effect would be offset 30 by the benefit of long-term protection of forest habitat in the SUMB that would be funded by the 31 Air Force to compensate for the loss of nightingale reed-warbler habitat. The possibility of a swiftlet 32 being harmed by aircraft during divert activities and exercises is discountable because the area is distant 33 from nesting caves, the second-growth forests at the end of the runways are not preferred foraging habitat, 34 and swiftlets likely avoid the busy airspace around GSN. For these reasons, the USAF concludes that 35 developing divert capabilities and conducting divert activities and exercises at GSN may affect, but are 36 not likely to adversely affect, Mariana swiftlets. 37

5.4 Green Sea Turtles 38

Up to 18 green sea turtles nests have been found annually on Saipan since 1999 (Kolinski et al. 2001, 39 Maison et al. 2010). Nesting habitat for this species would not be directly affected by this project. 40 However, green sea turtles nesting on beaches of southern Saipan, and hatchling turtles moving from 41 nests to the ocean, could be temporarily exposed to noise from military aircraft participating in divert 42




activities or exercises (DON 2010). Exposure to elevated noise levels would be brief (seconds) and, with 1 the exception of emergency divert landings and associated take-offs, would occur over a period of no 2 more than 8 weeks of the year. Any behavioral avoidance reaction would be short-term and would not 3 permanently displace sea turtles or result in physical harm. Noise from take-offs and landing would not 4 result in chronic stress because it is unlikely that individual sea turtles would be repeatedly exposed to 5 low-altitude overflights. Therefore, any effects would be insignificant and would not be sufficient to 6 harm or harass sea turtles, and the USAF concludes that developing divert capabilities and conducting 7 divert activities and exercises at GSN may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, green sea turtles in 8 terrestrial environments. 9




6. Conclusions 1

Based on the description of the project in Section 2 of this BA and further described in the associated EIS 2 (USAF 2012), the status of species and environmental baseline described in Sections 3 and 4, and the 3 analysis of impacts in Section 5, the USAF concludes the following about the potential impacts on 4 threatened and endangered species from developing divert capabilities and conducting divert activities 5 and exercises at GSN. 6

The proposed project will have no affect on Mariana fruit bat and Micronesian megapodes 7

The proposed project may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, the Mariana common 8 moorhen, Mariana swiftlet, and nesting green sea turtle 9

The proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the nightingale reed-warbler. 10




7. References Anderson et al. 1989

Andersen, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton 1989. Response of nesting Red-tailed Hawks to helicopter overflights. Condor 91:296-299.

Anderson et al. 1990

Andersen, D.E., O.J. Rongstad, and W.R. Mytton. 1990. Home-range changes of raptors exposed to increased human activity levels in southeastern Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:134-142.

Awbrey and Hunsaker 1997

Awbrey, F.T., and D. Hunsaker. 1997. Effects of fixed-wing military aircraft noise on California gnatcatcher reproduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102:3177.

Commonwealth Ports Authority 2002

Commonwealth Ports Authority. 2002. Saipan International Airport Master Plan. April 2002.

Camp et al. 2009 Camp, R.J., T.K. Pratt, A. P. Marshall, F. Amidon, and L.L. Williams. 2009. Recent status and trends of the land bird avifauna on Saipan, Mariana Islands, with emphasis on the endangered nightingale reed-warbler Acrocephalus luscinia. Bird Conservation International 19:323-337.

Cibois et al. 2011 Cibois, A. J.S. Beadell, E. Pasquet, B. Slikas, S.A. Sonsthagen, J-C. Thibault, and R.C. Fleischer. 2011. Charting the course of reed-warblers across the Pacific islands. Journal of Biogeography 30: 1963–1975.

Craig 1992 Craig, R.J. 1992. Territoriality, habitat use and ecological distinctness of an endangered Pacific island reed-warbler. Journal of Field Ornithology 63:436–444.

Cruz et al. 2008 Cruz, J.B., S.R. Kremer, G. Martin, L.L. Williams, and V.A. Camacho. 2008. Relative abundance and distribution of Mariana swiftlets (Aves: Apodidae) in the northern Mariana Islands. Pacific Science 62:233-246.

DON 2010 DON (Department of the Navy). 2010. Mariana Islands Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. May 2010. Volume 1.

Delany et al. 1999

Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beiber, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76.

Dufour 1980 Dufor, P.A. 1980. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals: Review of research since 1971. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 550/9 BO-00.Washington, D.C.

Efroymson et al. 2000

Efroymson, R.A., R.A. Rose, S. Nemeth, and G.W. Suter II. 2000. Ecological risk assessment framework for low-altitude overflights by fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft. Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Environmental Sciences Division. Publication 5010. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.




Hunsaker et al. 2007

Hunsaker, D., J. Rice, and J. Kern. 2007. The effects of helicopter noise on the reproductive success of the coastal California gnatcatcher. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 122:3058.

Kaseloo and Tyson 2004

Kaseloo, P.A., and K.O. Tyson. 2004. Synthesis of noise effects on wildlife populations. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-06-016. McLean, Virginia.

Kolinski et al. 2001

Kolinski, S.P., D.M. Parker, L.I. Ilo, and J.K. Ruak. 2001. An assessment of the sea turtles and their marine and terrestrial habitats at Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Micronesica 34:55-72.

Larkin et al. 1996 Larkin, R.P., L.L. Pater, and D.J. Tazik, D.J. 1996. Effects of military noise on wildlife: A literature review. U.S.Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories Technical Report 96/21. Champaign, Illinois.

Maison et al 2010 Maison, K.A., K.I. Kinain, and K.P. Frutchey. 2010. Green turtle nesting sites and sea turtle legislation throughout Oceania. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-110.

Manci et al. 1988 Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center, NERC-88/29. Ft. Collins, Colorado.

MES 2012 Micronesian Environmental Services (MES). 2012. Biological Report: Saipan International Airport Project Site, Saipan, CNMI. Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Mosher 2006 Mosher, S.M. 2006. Ecology of the endangered nightingale reed-warbler (Acrocephalus luscinia) on Saipan, Micronesia. Master’s Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Mosher and Fancy 2002

Mosher, S.M. and S.G. Fancy. 2002. Description of nests, eggs, and nestlings of the endangered nightingale reed-warbler on Saipan, Micronesia. Wilson Bulletin 114:1-10.

NMFS 1998 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Recovery Plan for the U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Oregon.

NMFS 2011 NMFS. 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion for Military Readiness Activities on the Mariana Islands Range Complex. National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources, Washington D.C. August 2011.

Takano and Haig 2004

Takano, L.L., and S.M. Haig. 2004. Distribution and Abundance of the Mariana Subspecies of the Common Moorhen. Waterbirds 27:245-250.




USAF 2012 U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2012. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Divert Activities and Exercises, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Pacific Air Forces, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.

USDA 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. Wildlife Hazard Assessment: Francisco C. Ada, Saipan International Airport. Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. August 2008.

USFWS 1991 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Recovery Plan for the Mariana Islands Population of the Vanikoro Swiftlet, Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 1992 USFWS 1992. Recovery Plan Mariana Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropos guami. Region One, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 1998a USFWS 1998. Recovery Plan for the Micronesian Megapode (Megapodius laperouse laperouse). Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 1998b USFWS 1998. Recovery Plan for the Nightingale Reed-Warbler (Acrocephalus luscinia). Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 2006a USFWS 2006. Biological Opinion on the Establishment and Operation of an Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike Capability Project on Anderson Air Force Base, Guam. 1-2-2006-F-266. Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2006b USFWS 2006. Final Biological Opinion for the Proposed Rehabilitation of Runway 07/25 and Relocation of water Catchment Reservoir, Saipan International Airport, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 1-2-2006-F-741. Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2008a USFWS. 2008. Programmatic Biological Opinion Regarding the Reestablishment, Management, and Use of the Saipan Upland Mitigation Bank, Saipan. 2008-F-0033. Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2008b USFWS 2008. Biological Opinion for the Joint Guam Program Office Relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps from Okinawa to Guam and Associated Activities on Guam and Tinian. 2010-F-0122. Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2009a USFWS 2009. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Mariana Fruit Bat or Fanahi (Pteropus mariannus mariannus). Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 2009b USFWS 2009. Mariana Common Moorhen 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation. Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2009c USFWS 2009. Recommended Survey Guidelines for the Nightingale Reed-Warbler. Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2010a USFWS 2010. Biological Opinion for the Mariana Islands Range Complex, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 2010-2015. 2009-F-0345. Honolulu, Hawaii.




USFWS 2010b USFWS 2010. Nightingale Reed-Warbler (Acrocephalus luscinia) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation. Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2010c USFWS 2010. Mariana Swiftlet or Chachaguak (Aerodramus bartschi) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation. Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.

USFWS 2011a USFWS 2011. Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Animal & Plants: Updated February 2, 2011. Listed Species, as Designated Under the Endangered Species Act. << http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/species.html>> (downloaded March 5, 2012).

USFWS 2011b USFWS 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Hypolimnas octucula mariannensis. <<http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0R7>> (downloaded June 5, 2012).

USFWS 2011c USFWS 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Partula gibba. <<http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=G0AC>> (downloaded June 5, 2012).

Valdez et al. 2011 Valdez. E.W., G.J. Wiles, and T.J. O’Shea. 2011. Diets of the sympatric Pacific sheath-tailed bat (Emballonura semicaudata rotensis) and Mariana swiftlet (Aerodramus bartschi) on Aguiguan, Mariana Islands. Pacific Science 65:301–309.


Formal Consultation for Divert Activities and Exercises at the Saipan International Airport,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

August 20, 2013

Subject: Corrections made to Divert Biological Opinion (2012‐F‐0445) after signing

1. Page 11 (Brown Treesnake Interdiction and Control), paragraph 1, 1st sentence: Reference to "Public Law 110‐417, [Division A], title III, Section 316, October 14,2008, 122 Statute 4410" should instead read "122 Statute 4356." 2. Page 11 (Brown Treesnake Interdiction and Control), paragraph 1, 2nd sentence: This text refers to JRM Instruction 5090.4 which is a draft instruction at this time. The applicable instructions are COMNAVMARIANASINST 5090.10A and 36 Wing Instruction 32‐7004. 3. Page 13 cites a DOD Instruction 5090.10A. This should instead read COMNAVMARIANASINST 5090.10A.


A P P E N D I X C

CZMA Compliance Supporting Documentation

Revised Draft Divert EIS Appendix C

C-1

STATUS OF FEDERAL AGENCY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT NEGATIVE DETERMINATION FOR PROPOSED ACTIONS IN THE

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

A coastal zone negative determination (ND) assessment was submitted to Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands (CNMI) Coastal Resources Management Office (CRMO) on May 18, 2012. The

assessment encompassed all proposed actions described in the June 2012 Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for Divert Activities and Exercises, Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands. Pursuant to 15 CFR Section 930.35(c), the CNMI CRMO was not obligated to respond to the

ND, and since the CNMI CRMO did not respond to the ND within 60 days, the CNMI CRMO

concurrence with the ND was presumed.

The USAF is initiating additional correspondence with the CNMI CRMO regarding the Revised Draft

EIS to ensure compliance with the CZMA.


C-2



C-3

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination: Negative Determination Notice


C-4


C-5


C-6


revised draft environmental impact statement for … ii divert publicrdeis_appsa-c_100615.pdfrevised...

Documents